Also, I cannot remember a time when I actively chose to be lazy, selfish, and gluttinous. I’ve been that way as long as I can remember. Therefore, I now hereby demand that you accept those traits as God-honoring and lovely.

Next time, relax, breathe, and then begin typing with your caps lock turned off.

One, I made absolutely no polictical statement in my post, so the thing about “outlawing…” is unnecessary. But just so you know I’m against adultery, divorce, and abortion as much as homosexuality so it’s rather a moot point anyways.

Two, on your definition of sin, I’ve noticed that you happened to neglect the first of the two summations of the law and prophets: love God. By going directly against what Gods commands, you are not loving God, so if you want to boil it down to Matthew 22 (even at the expense of ignoring Paul’s use of the word sin, and John’s definition of sin as lawlessness (anomia – without law)) then you have left out the most important part: the greatest commandment, love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind.

You ask what is unloving about a homosexual relationship. However, you are starting with a faulty definition of who sin is against. Sin is first and foremost against God, which is why it is listed as the first greatest commandment in the passage you mentioned, and neglected. You ask, “Who is the victim being sinned against?” Well, the answer should be obvious. God is being sinned against, and to reject that you have to reject the majority and totality of the Bible. That is why David can say in the Psalms “only against you, Lord, have I sinned.”

You said: “The Gospel writers and prophets do not mention homosexuality because it is not a sin.” That’s a rather poor argument from silence. The Gospel writers and prophets don’t mention it because it wasn’t on their particular agenda. Do you hold that the Gospels and Prophets are more inspired than the Law and the Epistles? If so, you have pitted inspired writing against inspired writing.

Also, your apologetic for the use of the word homosexual makes no logical sense. Obviously the english term didn’t come about until later, because English wasn’t spoken in the 1st century. But if what you say is true, than homosexuality didn’t exist until 1865 either. The fact is that homosexuality has been around long before then; the acts are the same even if the word for it is in a different language. Check out http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/book-review-dirt-greed-sex-by-countryman/ for a fuller defense of the Greek in Romans 1, etc.

Your point on “as with a woman” is also rather poor. The term used means “like” or “in the same way” not “pretending to be with.” That’s a whole lot of eisegesis on your part to make it say otherwise.