My views, sir, are no more or less subjective than your own. As for my making a moral judgment, no, I have not. I don’t judge anyone. The whole issue of this thread is whether Old and New Testament scriptures mean what they appear to mean, or should they be taken in a context of heathen worship involving the sacrifice of infants and wanton sex acts
Well, 'sir', with all due respect, yes, you are making a moral judgement. You are also deciding that scriptures must be interpreted a certain way, which happens to coincide with your personal views on the matter. The context in which you're referring to 'judgement' is a theological context in which 'only God' 'judges' anyone (typically, in a primitive after-life scenario), which relies on the unproven assertion of the existence of a deity, and that it would care about what people do.
Doesn’t God make subjective moral judgments? Does He not state: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” This passage is in a long list of commandments and penalties. “And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20) Are all of these commandments to be interpreted in light of heathen worship? I don’t think so.
Does God exist? Unless you can prove this, your question is entirely hypothetical. Do the views of some bronze-age shepherds matter? Why? Do you also keep their dietry laws (Leviticus 11:7, 10-12) and observe the Sabbath? (Leviticus 23:3, Numbers 15:32-36) Do you own slaves? (Exodus 21:20, 21) Do you abhor poly-cotton? (Leviticus 19:19) Ah, what a perfect law.
How do you know [associating homosexuality with pedophilia is] distorted? What if it’s not distorted?
Sexual orientation is about attraction to a particular gender, not people of a particular age group. It has been fairly well established that pedophilia (along with rape) is more about control than attraction, and certainly not about mutual attraction.
And what if the Lord does view homosexuality as an abomination?
You need to establish that "the Lord" exists before you can ascribe likes or dislikes to it (unless it's just fan fiction), and it's still awfully presumptuous to assert what a deity likes on the basis of some primitive oral traditions.
Who says [the existence of a deity must be proven first]? We’re talking about scriptural exegesis here, not the existence or nature of God. The title of this thread calls into question how Hebraic scripture is interpreted.
The scriptures can be interpreted either way. Whether such interpretations matter remains a valid question. You've already established that you have fairly strong feelings about the matter.
Yes, although sometime I wonder if perpetrate was right. About infertile people who still have sex, no problem. I said the main, or primary, reason for sex was to perpetuate the species. Mechanically, homosexual acts are problematic, as emergency room doctors can attest. Even before AIDS, the health ramifications of homosexuality dwarfed those of heterosexuality.
I'm sure the infertile couples (as well as any other heterosexual couples using contraception or engaging in acts that can't result in pregnancy) can rest easy knowing they have your blessing. I'm not sure if you're aware, but most things homosexual couples can do can also be done by heterosexual couples, and there's no acts that are restricted to individuals of any particular orientation. I'm not sure that every instance of homosexual 'unions' results in a trip to the emergency room, or that no heterosexual has ever engaged in proclivities that may require such a trip. What's your source for emergency room statistics?
Hmm...yeah, prominent. It raises the question of why there are no decent gay parades held by other subsets?
For much the same reason there aren't many heterosexual parades.
Godwin is an idiot. Do you know anything about the Night of the Long Knives? Despite the persecution of “femme” homosexuals, the Nazi hierarchy, including the “brown shirts,” were riddled with homosexuals. But these were expected to act like tough men in public, not the outrageous effeminate types that were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Behind closed doors, however, things could, and did, get wild. Rumors abounded that Hitler, himself, was a homosexual; however, he was explicit in letting his men know that he had no wish to be embarrassed, and that he wouldn’t stand for it.
It's not clear why you're saying Godwin is "an idiot". He didn't say anything in particular for or against your argument. So apparently you just didn't bother checking the reference for what the idiom 'Godwin's law' actually means.
It's little wonder that people acted secretly in the conditions of a dangerous insidious regime, particularly under quite a lot of psychological pressure. Particularly since many in the regime shared the same pathetic stereotypical division as you that 'homosexuals' are "the outrageous effeminate types" who would otherwise have to "act like tough men in public". And 'of course' Hitler 'must' have been 'homosexual'. Just like he 'was an athiest'. And cruel to puppies.