To be fair, most of that isn't really in the bible. There's a total of TWO scriptures that MAY condemn masturbation. We can't really be sure, because nobody has ever figured out what exactly the word "pornea" means. Some might say the part about Onan has it covered, but such misses the point entirely. More on that in a bit.
Onanism is the sin of pulling out so you don't impregnate your dead brother's wife, thus completely messing up the family inheritance. It has nothing to do with masturbation. However, the fact that it's not biblical has nothing to do with boys being told that self-appreciation is sinful, blindness-causing, and a source of guilt.
"Showing skin" is also not quite condemned. Many scriptures actually seem to encourage it, ESPECIALLY male (full frontal even) nudity. The closest we can get to actual condemnation is the story of Adam and Eve. However, that is VERY open to interpretation. Being naked or seeing someone naked is, at best, only a sin in certain specific circumstances. Maybe.
Islam disagrees. Women are supposed to cover themselves and not "dress immodestly" or they'll cause earthquakes or something. At the very least, showing too much skin will cause virile young men's blood to rise, causing them to lose control and do things that can't possibly be their fault because it was the immodestly dressed woman that
made him rape her.
Birth control? There is exactly one reference to birth control and it wasn't the act of birth control itself that was condemned. Onan's sin wasn't birth control and it sure as hell wasn't masturbation - it had nothing to do with sex at all. Rather, it was about deceit. Onan was going to lose a lot if his brother's wife gave birth, as he stood to inherit from his father. By pulling out, she wouldn't get pregnant but still claim that Onan had done his part and would therefore be blameless.
The Catholic church still despises all forms of birth control.
As for homosexuality, that gets us back to the difficulty of translating a dead language from a dead culture. Every passage used in modern times to condemn homosexuality means something different depending on context and nobody today really knows what the context at the time was. There's pretty much exactly one passage that is relatively clear* and it's surrounded by passages talking about how much God hates cotton-polyester blends, shellfish, etc. In other words, it no longer counts.
Romans 1:26-28, Romans 1:31-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10.
And then there are the clearly homosexual couples like David and Jonathon, Ruth and Naomi. Jesus' best friend was a prostitute and yet he never displayed any sexual interest in women. The Song of Solomon appears to be a gay love poem.
You're stretching here. "
he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts" sounds pretty hetero to me. And the David-Jonathon relationship is hotly debated. Sure, it
appears homosexual, but the fact that scholars so vehemently deny it is a demonstration of the church's anti-gay attitude. Again, just because it's not in the Bible (and it is) doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the modern church.
The only two things god really hates in regard to sex is incest and adultery. And it seems incest is okay sometimes.
What?? Incest is okay
all the time! (according to the Bible, that is)
Have you considered, arth, that God just might not like having sex with you?
Rubbish. Everyone likes having sex with me. I'm just that good.
