I already said that Jesus was opposed to homosexuality. He was also opposed to adultery. There would be any number of criteria whereby Jesus would have objected to what went down with these two - but he wouldn’t have seen either one as a “child” so the quote about the millstone wouldn’t be applicable and it is a total misrepresentation of the meaning of the Bible to say that he would consider one a “child”.
Do you think the Bible is a “living document” to be interpreted by the standards of today - or do we go with original intent?
Your arguments (if someone wanted to honor them by such a word) are specious.
BTW, your flying spittle gives you away.
According to LAW, that 14 year old was a CHILD. I know MY 14 year old daughter is a CHILD.
I believe that Jesus said to obey the law, unless directly contradicted by His Word.