[Das Outsider]

It tires me to write all of this, because I don't accept the validity of any of these arguments. I'm just trying (doggedly) to illustrate the fact that they have engaged linguists and professors and ministers and so forth to develop arguments based on plausible Scripture scholarship and the "correction" of supposed "mis-translations." But I don't see anybody addressing this point-for-point.

Forgive me if I was a little brief in my previous response. A good lawyer might argue in defense of homosexuality based on Scripture, due to "errors" in the Scriptures which somehow obscured an otherwise neutral position on same-sex relations, i.e., given that the old Torah civil laws are no longer applied, they were written from--or for--a certain perspective, etc. I am not a good lawyer, but I'm decent at dismantling the arguments from the so-called Gay Christian movement, just like social justice "Christians," just like pro-choice "Christians," and so on.

We can do it point-for-point, if you'd like. I'm not at all impressed by the radical homosexual movement's apparent sophistry, or "sophistication," if you'd prefer.

[Das Outsider]

I may have to whip out the now-famous Nestle-Aland text! ;)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I'm decent at dismantling the arguments from the so-called Gay Christian movement... point-for-point, if you'd like."

Thank you! I mean it! There are hundreds of Gay Christian sites. One I was looking at awhile ago had its arguments in compact form focused on the 6 or 8 major "clobber passages" (as they called them), 4 in the OT and 4 in the NT. Can't find that particular article right now, but this one has similar arguments. Can you take 'em apart, or show me where somebody else has done so? You'd be doing a grand service for us all.