In the book I'm reading the boy prostitute argument comes up as well as the OT argument that puts the ban on gay sex with the ban on shrimp. Do you know any responses to these arguments (aside from them not conforming to Tradition, Church authority and Natural Law?)
Again, thank you for your help. The course I'm taking, I think, will be pushing for gay inclusion and if they are not included it will be seen as a sign of the churches hatred for homosexuals (homophobia). Topics like homophobia, western imperialism, racism will be addressed in future chapters so I already know that there is a leftist slant.
I meant, What do WE (the Christians who uphold the morality traditionally taught by historic Christianity) have to fall back on, if we rely ONLY on Sola Scriptura?
The gays can just say, "Oh yeah, we're faithful to Sola Scriptura too" and then come back with their own scholars and their own "better" translations.
For instance, they'll say that nowhere in the NT is there a single word which corresponds to the English words "homosexual" or "homosexuality." (These words did not even appear in English until the 19th century.) They argue that the words usually translated "homosexual" mean more exactly "anal rape, temple prostitution, attempted sexual abuse of angels (who are neither men nor women)" etc.
They say the condemnation against men "turning away from the natural use of women" refers only to heterosexual men who turn away from their natural heterosexuality to try out a little kinky homosex, but does not apply to men who are "naturally" homosexual and therefore have never "turned away from" relations with women.
They'll say the "strange flesh" referred to in the Epistle of Jude refers to the angels (not humans) whom the men of Sodom wanted to abuse.
They'll say the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi are MIS-translated "homosexual" when really they mean pedophile and pagan-cult-ritual-intercourse.
They'll say "the sin of Sodom" is best defined in Ezekiel 16:48-50
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
You can't refute that with Scripture, because it IS Scripture.
So without Tradition (our historic understanding), Magisterium (the authority of the Church) and Natural Law (what reason tells us about vice and its consequences)--- a really decisive, disposative argument cannot be made by Scripture alone.
Any good Christian understands that hatred of homosexuals is wrong. No doubt people sometimes get carried away and say hateful things, but that is not endorsed by traditional Christian teachings.
The teaching of the Catholic Church, and I would venture to say of most decent Protestant pastors, is that homosexuality is a disorder. It is unnatural, because the basic intention of nature and nature's God is that male and female should come together to produce children. And, of course, with human beings that includes marriage. Even Darwin would say that homosexuality is a disorder, because it does not lead to the propagation of the species.
Having a disorder is not in itself sinful. Most true homosexuals simply cannot help their inclinations and desires. But it becomes a sin if it is put into actual practice--or if it becomes a political argument where the proponents try to convince others that homosexual acts are good in themselves.
Homophobia is one of those invented words, used in Orwellian fashion to disguise the true facts. Christians are NOT homophobes--i.e., haters of homosexuals. Rather, as Jesus taught, they hate the sin, but not the sinner.
In some cases, homosexual inclinations seem to be built in, in which case the Christian thing to do is to avoid doing it. In other cases, kids have been mistaught, and it is possible to convert them to being normal heterosexuals.
But, of course, there's another Catch 22 there. According to PC doctrine, it's OK to teach kindergarteners to be homosexuals. But it's WRONG to give grown up homosexuals a chance to change their ways. Under the name of tolerance, the leftist teachers of these sorts of practices are, as usual, extremely intolerant.
The boy prostitute argument does not stand up to Romans 1. See my post 139 above.
As for the shrimp argument, every verse that shows homosexuality is depraved behavior of a reprobate in the New Testament such as Romans 1, and Jude 7, as well as the New Testament admonishment for non Jewish converts to stay away from sexual sins in Acts 15, all refute the shrimp argument.