Regarding 1 Corinthians (this is why I didn't want to get into that here, risking a HUGE tangent), I think 11:1 is more related to Chapter 10 and that 11:2 is where the Chapter (new thought, or continuing thought, begins).
After prohibiting Corinthians from becoming involved in pagan worship, Paul not turns to address three items of abuse in their own assemblies: a concern related to women's head coverings or hairstyles when praying or prophesying; the abuse of the poor at the Lord's Table; and the abuse of speaking in tongues in the assembly (Chps 12-14). This topic, in Chapter 11, is the only one that begins "now about," indicating it is likely something that was mentioned in their letter to Paul.
1 Corinthians 11:2-14 seem to be divided into 3 logical arguments that Paul makes.
vv3-6 Paul uses a metaphorical usage of the word "head" (before later employing a more literal use regarding "coverings" on their head).
Fee argues that the "head" metaphor is not hierarchical, setting up an authority structure (in fact, the only usage of exousia refers to the woman's own authority in v10). The metaphor for head to mean "chief" or "person of highest rank" is rare in Greek literature. Paul's probably use of "head" here is as "source" or "source of life." Paul's concern is not hierarchical, but relational.
That said, I do believe that Paul here, is supporting social order and customs based on the concept of "life source."
No, in all my friendships with unbelievers in the city where I live (that are homosexual), I have not been aware of any particular domestic violence problem unique to homosexuals... or even a problem in general. So we are anecdotal vs. anecdotal. You also mentioned many homosexuals being former Pentecostals? Could this be because those are who you know and affiliated with (you yourself being a Pentecostal) and that a guy who was a tradesman, may know more homosexuals that are tradesmen? This is the danger of either of us forming conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.
You seem to be implying that because homosexuals break God's order of "headship" (not entirely sure what you mean), that there is more havoc in their homes. I think I can find other ways to suggest homosexual homes break God's design and purposes for us to live full and healthy lives. But I think it's a stretch to say they have relational problems above and beyond what other romantic partners have.
Many homosexuals assume roles prior to going into relationships. It's not like "who's going to be the man or woman", but rather, and they have their own language for this, they go by personality. Some are more mild, less decisive and they defer to the more decisive and aggressive one.
I would thnk the biggest instances of "domestic violence" among homosexuals is perpetrated by hateful heterosexuals.
Your point is made by advocacy groups like this:
http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_dv.htm
http://www.lambda.org/DV_background.htm
Of course, they reason and argue for different factors (read the second link)
Linear Mode
