[CalifornianConservative]

I was only describing the revulsion of an innocent kid, not my own sexual proclivities. The Bible plainly says that "likewise, women gave up what was natural for unnatural intercourse." That's not a stretch. What was Paul referring to if not the same sexual acts that the homosexual men he was discussing previously?

But I am not judging you or anyone -- I'm just saying that I have heard this teaching and I tend to agree with it -- even Clintoon's argument that it is "not sex" means that it is something other than normal sexuality, no? And, the classic definition of anything outside normal sexuality is, unfortunately, "perversion".

[kpp_kpp]

(my last response on this topic)

What was Paul referring to if not the same sexual acts that the homosexual men he was discussing previously?

You're correct, reading it in context is important. If one starts pulling phrases out of the Bible they can make it say anything they want. So in context here Paul is referring to lesbianism and homosexuality.

means that it is something other than normal sexuality, no?

Any sexual activity outside the bound of marriage is against the design/intent. But within marriage I'd have to agree with those who say the Bible is silent on the topic. The exception being 1Cor 7:3,4 - and that is just saying it must be consensual.

If I wanted to push it I'd say the phrase "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her" is not referring to plain-old intercourse. But I won't go there.