Scripture of course has a very clear testimony against unnatural sex: sodomy, onanism, contracepted sex, or any other kind of sex which isn't marital and in the procreative form. Sex which is marital and procreative is never mentioned disapprovinglyin Sacred Scripture; sex which is nonmarital or turned away from the procreative form, is never mentioned approvingly.
You and I agree on that.
However Reverend Gay Christian Pastor will not agree, because he will argue that it is YOU and I who are un-Scriptural. He will insist that it is YOU and I, Avalon, who are promoting a mistaken interpretation.
You know this is erroneous. I know it is, too. But Reverend Gay Christian Pastor will justify it Scripturally along the lines I've already indicated HERE [LINK]
To summarize: he will say that the OT prohibitions on homosex can be set aside like other temporary Israelite taboos (like the prohibition agianst eating pork and shellfish); he will say the Sodom story refers to forcible rape, not nice sweet gay Christian lovemaking; he will say arsenokoitai and malakoi (the words of St. Paul) refer to temple prostitutes and catamites, not homosexuals per se. He will say the prohibition of "fornication" indicates that gays should marry each other in order not to be fornicators, since St. Paul says "marriage is honorable for all."
And thus he will dispose of every Scriptural argument by saying that it cannot possibly refer to homosexuality in itself, because the word "homosexual" and didn't even exist until the 19th or 20th century.
"How's this sodomite any different than those Catholic priests who sodomized young alter boys?"
Here's how he's different: Reverend Gay Pastor is convinced that his stand is Scriptural, and nobody has any authority to tell him otherwise. In contrast, a perverted priest knows he's not Scripturally OK, and if he were to try to publically justify his actions, the Church's doctrines would plainly tell him otherwise. There is not even one molecule of authoritative Catholic teaching that will support the pervert priest.
The Catholic priest knows he has no "right" to put forth a personal interpretation of Scripture which is in conflict with the authoritative teaching of the Church. He may still sin, and sin damnably, and go to eternal hellfire sinning damnably, but he cannot cite Scripture to argue that he's actually all right.
‘He will say the prohibition of “fornication” indicates that gays should marry each other in order not to be fornicators, since St. Paul says “marriage is honorable for all.”’
I predict the pro-polygamy crowd will try to use a similar argument when the “polygamous rights” movement gains momentum: “It’s not adultery if an already married man marries another woman. His mistress(or mistresses) will become his 2nd(or 3rd or 4th, etc.) wife. Therefore, it technically can’t be adultery”.
I wanted to try to further illustrate my point here. Yes, this sodomite would try to state that his stand is Scriptural and that no one has the authority to tell him otherwise. You're correct in thinking that he'll try to take that position. However, that's not what 2 Timothy 3 states. It doesn't state that select portions of Scripture are breathed by God and are profitable. It states that ALL Scripture is breathed by God. Including that Scripture that labels sodomy as an abomination and those who practice it as an abomination in God's sight. That's where the authority to reject this doctrine as evil comes from. It doesn't come from a Church bureaucracy or the membership of the Church, it comes directly from God Himself via His written and recorded word.
The bureaucracy and the membership derive their authority from the Word, not the other way around, and when we fail to stand by this point, we wind up with sodomites molesting the altar boys, homosexual marriage being accepted as normal in the Churches, abortion seen as a woman's "right" instead of infanticide and all kinds of other forms of evil. There's sin in the camp and it started when man thought he understood the Bible better than the Author did.