If being homosexual is a sin, then why did God create homosexuals?

[BigBadWlf]

Homosexuality is based on the factors that you are raised with, for instance if you grow up with 2 homosexual parents your most likely going to be homosexual, or if your entire life women have treated you like garbage your going to find an attraction to the thing that is giving you good attention, or for alot of men that have problems with inappropriate content they look for the next best thing all the way until it leads up to another man.

Sorry.

Your facts are anything but factual

Research has shown, time and again, that children raised by gay/lesbian parents are no more and no less likely to grow up to be homosexual than their heterosexually raised peers.

Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 67 - 78.

Patterson, C.J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052- 1069.

Patterson, C.J. (2004). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings. In Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists.

Patterson, C. J. (2004). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th Ed.).

Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159-183.

Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families - A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153 - 166.

God does not hate the sinner he hates the sin, you simply get punished for your sin.
Homosexual goes both ways 1 Corinthians 6:9 says:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

translation issues are again at the forefront, here the problem is with the Greek word arsenokoites. It is a compound word that was rarely used in the time Paul wrote.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

There is no reason or justification for the translation of arsenokoites to mean homoseuxal

This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. Specifically koitai is feminine. Thus making arsenokoites (if one accepts the compound origin of the definition) a reference to a man in a woman’s bed, not a man in the bed of another man.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside…the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah

“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.” Ezekiel 16:49

Homosexuality is dangerous because of the spread of disease,

Have anything to back this whopper up?

the fad of following it, the fact that Gods first commandment to us was "be fruitful and multiply". You may want to take a look into some of the homosexual cultures in Brazil. They take there boys at about the age of 15 up a cabin with the old men and sodomize them and rape them to "make them men".

What?
I will ask you to reference this nonsense but I doubt you will even try

Heres some sites to look at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/050607

I already addressed this lie and it’s creator Paul Cameron.

This one includes tries to substantiate Cameron’s lie by lying about the research of Robert Hogg and his associates. It is the “conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology”. Dr. Hogg and his associates were so upset about the blatant lies being told about his research that he and his colleges addressed their concerns to the International Journal of Epidemiology and in an unprecedented move the journal published that letter.

“Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”
International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:1499

It is terribly sad that some people are so desperate to justify hatred and bigotry that they feel they must stoop to blatant lies like this

In fact take a look into www.nambla.org its a group that trys to recruit boys as homosexuals.

A dead link form a group that doesn’t actually exist

I only mentioned men because I thought that was the main focus.
Be careful how you describe love, God is love. There are actually 3 words for love in the Hebrew ra'yah(friend), ahaba(diehard companionship), dod(intermingling of souls between you spouse and God, sex involved). You cannot have true love without God, and if God only allows true love between man and woman than you have your answer.

Can you explain how false witness and the justification of hatred towards a minority is in any way “love”?

You can be at ahava with another man David was with Jonathan, but he could not go any farther because he would not have God.

The earth has actually become less proportionate, there are less people now than there were back in those days and that is because less people are having children and those that do only have 1-2. Where as in the old testament some would have up to 70 children.

The most recent estimate of the population is 6,602,224,175. the population of the world keeps going up and doing so exponentially

 

[Sketcher]

Sexual orientation isn't about how you behave.

David.

The morality of homosexual thoughts and actions is all about how you behave.

 

[quatona]

Although I am unsure if homosexuality is wrong or not, I often wonder what environmental and psychological components are involved. For example, I wonder if early sexual abuse may be a factor in some present homosexual behaviors.

I´m wondering the same about heterosexuality.

 

[eves_adam]

You have to admit, Wlf has done a little research on this. However, I am reluctant to equate race and skin color with sexual orientation so facilely.

The main question is one of choice. Racial minorities have little choice in how they define themselves. Although they may choose to have a very positive definition of self, this has little impact on how they are viewed by the majority or dominant group; they are still viewed as inferior nonetheless.

Homosexuality it's clear, is like racial minority status, NOT a choice for many, if not most, who are defined as 'homosexual.' Nonetheless, there are individuals who move with relative ease from heterosexual to homosexual behavior, and then back again. Is such an individual straight, but curious? Is this person bi? Is this person gay, but in denial?

It is this polymorphous nature of sexuality, which clearly DOES involve an element of choice for some, if not many, which clearly separates the categories of racial minority from sexual minority status.

How does that impact how sexuality should be viewed? I think we need to view the world in terms of a general code of ethics which respects the following:

1. do individuals cause physical harm to others with their conduct?
2. even if individuals do not intentionally physically harm others, do they impair the ability of others to exercise their freedoms?
3. even more ambiguous still, even if conditions 1 and 2 are not fulfilled, is the individual causing a subjective state of emotional suffering in others?

I think it is clear that gays are not harming other people physically, certainly not intentionally.

I think it's also clear that gays who are engaging in sexual conduct are in no way impairing the ability of others to exercise their freedoms.

Finally, I think it would be very difficult for gays to cause a state of emotional suffering or even anxiety with their sexual activity, unless it were engaged in in public, and there are laws which forbid such activity, whether we are speaking of gay or straight sex. Unless you were to argue that gays by their simple existence, cause emotional suffering because they are THOUGHT to be engaging in behaviors which would cause distress IF others knew it was happening or suspected as much. Come on, such a line of reasoning would be ridiculous.

So what are we left with? A mere feeling of being uneasy? I feel uneasy if the weather broadcaster says there's a chance of rain. Is the weatherman liable and subject to criminal sanction as a result. Uh, no.

Having said all that, from a strictly gut level, yes, there is an aspect of homosexual behavior and identity which I would feel uncomfortable being around. But is this level of discomfort offensive to warrant moral condemnation? Unlikely. Legal reprimand. No. What's likely happening is that we are taught that this is wrong, through explicit or implicit means.

Is it possible to find biblical text which speak out against homosexual acts? Certainly. But the key is to discover what the INTENT of these codes is. There must be some underlying code or principle rather upon which these condemnations are based. Let's discover the principle and discuss.

I'm sure there are many many passages which can be interpreted in different ways. What does it mean to set aside one day for worship? Does picking up the paper in the morning count as work? Taking care of the kids. Is that work? Following it to the letter means that noone could do anything. Women are to get up at the crack of dawn to sew? And stay up late supporting her family on her eleventh hour tending to the pot roast?

Society is evolving and practical circumstances dictate that we examine biblical text for moral principles, rather than saying that specific truisms two or even four thousand years ago can be applied to the letter today.

 

[quatona]

People can't choose their sexuality, it's just the way they are.

Yes, but even if they could choose it I wouldn´t see a problem.

Why did God create people like that and then not allow them to express their feelings?

Creating things in a way he doesn´t want them to be seems to be a pattern/principle in biblegod´s creation. There appears to be a method to the madness.

What's wrong with being homosexual anyway?

Nothing.

If two people find true love does it really matter that they're of the same gender?

Not to me.

Isn't discriminating homosexual couples like discrimination couples with a large age gap or of different nationalities?

In some aspects these two issues are similar, in others they aren´t.

Myself, I am not homosexual, but I just don't understand why homosexuality is not acceptable.

It is acceptable. Some just don´t accept it. In my observation the reasons come down to post hoc rationalizations of "It´s eeew!".

 

[eves_adam]

To simplify, what is the underlying moral principle governing sanctioning of homosexual activity? What is the negative impact if any, of such behavior? If we are going to condemn, there has to be some practical deleterious effect that can be discerned. So what is it? And don't tell me this is morally offensive behavior because it's morally offensive behavior. Throw mechanical regurgitations of text out. Forget circular definitions. Show me the money. What is the impact, discernible, and clearly negative on society?

 

[cantata]

I'm so glad I don't have to ask God before I kiss a girl.

The combination of biological and environmental factors which influence sexual orientation is very complex. I think how one comes to have one's adult sexual orientation is largely irrelevant to the debate; proving that it is biological will only lead the anti-gay squad to call it a genetic disease. Far more important is to consider:

• Personal freedom. Is it more important to uphold personal freedom to sleep with whichever consenting adults one chooses than it is to protect people from themselves?
• Actual effects of having sex with people of your own sex. Do people who have sex with people of their own sex differ markedly in other ways from people who do not, and if they do, are the differences negative?
  • If there are differences, can they be changed? (i.e. are they inherent and inevitable consequences of same-sex sex, or can social change and education help to reduce them?)
  • To what degree are the differences caused, specifically, by social hostility towards non-heterosexuals and same-sex relationships?
• The dynamic of same-sex relationships. We hear a lot of posturing about same-sex relationships not being Biblical, but do they work? Are there happy, loving, successful same-sex relationships?

If we focused on these relevant questions, rather than how people got to be non-heterosexual in the first place, I think our debates would be more fruitful.

 

[eves_adam]

yes, as I was saying, what's the practical import of homosexual activity?

second, what is the underlying moral principle which sanctions homosexual activity in biblical text? If no one can tell me, I am likely to dismiss these condemnations as mere bigotry, thousands of years old, which we are too dumb or stubborn to overcome.

if anything, we could claim that homosexuality has positive social functions in that it keeps the human population level in check.

 

[IzzyPop]

Homosexuality is based on the factors that you are raised with, for instance if you grow up with 2 homosexual parents your most likely going to be homosexual, or if your entire life women have treated you like garbage your going to find an attraction to the thing that is giving you good attention, or for alot of men that have problems with inappropriate content they look for the next best thing all the way until it leads up to another man.

Ohhh. Wrong answer. See, children born to or raised by two homosexual parents are no more likely to be homosexual than those born and raised by heterosexual parents. Nice try though.

God does not hate the sinner he hates the sin, you simply get punished for your sin.
Homosexual goes both ways 1 Corinthians 6:9 says:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah

And what were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for? Here's a hint: Try Ezekiel.

Homosexuality is dangerous because of the spread of disease,

That would be unprotected sex, not homosexuality.

the fad of following it,

Yep, the thrill of being treated as less than human is quite a draw.

the fact that Gods first commandment to us was "be fruitful and multiply".

If only there were one homosexual parent out there to prove you wrong...

You may want to take a look into some of the homosexual cultures in Brazil. They take there boys at about the age of 15 up a cabin with the old men and sodomize them and rape them to "make them men".

Got proof?

Heres some sites to look at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/050607
In fact take a look into www.nambla.org its a group that trys to recruit boys as homosexuals.

Let us see...Lies, lies, and fringe groups.

The earth has actually become less proportionate, there are less people now than there were back in those days and that is because less people are having children and those that do only have 1-2. Where as in the old testament some would have up to 70 children.

And you, sir, just made it onto FSTDT. Congratulations!

 

[quatona]

The earth has actually become less proportionate, there are less people now than there were back in those days and that is because less people are having children and those that do only have 1-2. Where as in the old testament some would have up to 70 children.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg

 

[CreedIsChrist]

People can't choose their sexuality, it's just the way they are.
Why did God create people like that and then not allow them to express their feelings?
What's wrong with being homosexual anyway?
If two people find true love does it really matter that they're of the same gender?
Isn't discriminating homosexual couples like discrimination couples with a large age gap or of different nationalities?
Just like your sexuality, you can't decide when you were born or where you were born, yet different ages and nationalities are acceptable.
Myself, I am not homosexual, but I just don't understand why homosexuality is not acceptable.

Thanks for answers

God didn't create sin or homosexuality. Homosexuality is abuse of ones lust and ones free will. All sin is abuse of ones free will. Homosexuality is not acceptable because its a perversion, an abomination to God, and hurts and kills alot of people who get involved in it.

 

[Aianna]

Homosexuality is not acceptable because its a perversion, an abomination to God, and hurts and kills alot of people who get involved in it.

The only things that hurts or kills homosexuals because of homosexuality are violent bigots.

 

[OllieFranz]

God didn't create sin or homosexuality.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? (See Matthew 19:10-12)

Homosexuality is abuse of ones lust and ones free will.

Homosexuality is an orientation, not an action or even a decision. It cannot therefore be a sin.

It is a part of a person's human nature. Human nature includes "sin nature," and temptation does find the weaknesses of "sin nature" to exploit, but even then, the temptation is not the sin. Even Jesus was tempted, but did not sin.

Because our "sin nature" affects our sexual drives, we are all tempted to sins of sexual immorality, gay and straight alike. But not all sex, straight or gay is condemned as sin.

All sin is abuse of ones free will.

Agreed. But as pointed out above, totally irrelevant to the debate over whether all sex is sin. And completely misapplied to orientation.

Homosexuality is not acceptable because its a perversion, an abomination to God, and hurts and kills alot of people who get involved in it.

The word that the AV translates as "perversion" in Romans 1:27 is "plane" and it simply means wandering or straying from the normal path. And the sin or wandering in the example Paul borrows from Plato is over-indulgence leading to addiction (overindulging specifically in sex was just the example Plato chose -- in other examples he uses drunkenness). The "just punishment" for this over-indulgence is the addiction itself.

The word the AV translates as "abomination" in Leviticus 18 and 20 is "toevah" and it would be better translated by a word that was not yet common in English at the time King James authorized the translation: "taboo." It represents a ban on associating with certain religious objects and rites -- in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it bans association with objects and rites associated with the Egyptian and/or Canaanite gods. Its inclusion in the man-lying verses seems to indicate that the forbidden practices were pagan "fertility" rites.

As far as "hurting and killing" a lot of people, I assume that you are thinking about STDs, especially AIDS. (If I'm wrong in this assumption, please let me know and I'll address your point at that time.) Yes, AIDS made its first appearance in the gay communities, and spread at such a rate that it is still a major factor in those communities.

But STDs do not respect orientation. They are spread by promiscuity and unprotected sex regardless of the respective sexes of the partners. Worldwide, there are more straights than gays with AIDS. That it is a "gay disease" in America and Western Europe is an accident of history. The disparity between gay and straight populations in their risk level has been dropping for decades. If you leave out the gay enclaves with the bathhouses and high levels of promiscuity (High but not the extreme some anti-gay activists suggest. There are many straights who are at the same high levels)*, then proportionately, the incidence in gays and straights is about the same, and since there are so many more straights than gays, there are far more straight with HIV than gays.

Since Christian gays, like Christian straights, know that promiscuity is sinful, it would be "preaching to the choir" to use the STDs to "prove" promiscuity is harmful when debating homosexuality. It would also be off-topic, since promiscuity is not exclusive to gay sex, and disease does not respect orientation.

*Actually, we would also have to leave out straight frequenters of "red light zones" to balance leaving out the gay enclaves, or we would be seeing the added results of high promiscuity in only one of the populations.

 

[BigBadWlf]

God didn't create sin or homosexuality. Homosexuality is abuse of ones lust and ones free will. All sin is abuse of ones free will. Homosexuality is not acceptable because its a perversion, an abomination to God, and hurts and kills alot of people who get involved in it.

Eating shellfish is an abomination to God.

So is bigotry and that is what hurts people

 

[BigBadWlf]

The only things that hurts or kills homosexuals because of homosexuality are violent bigots.

 

[Stinker]

Originally Posted by Stinker

In the 1st century, a church made up of only Gentiles would not have been aware of the Leviticus passages. If they had received any copies of the letters that were sent to the Corinthians and Timothy they would have been at a loss as to what the Apostle was meaning with his invention of such a word as 'arsenokoites' .
​

With all due respect, I believe you may be quite mistaken here. In a first century Gentile church, Gentile believers would have immense familiarity with Old Testament Scripture. I have at least two reasons for saying so. First, the New Testament Scriptures make frequent reference to the importance of the Old Testament. Paul taught the Gentile churches about the the immense value of the Scriptures that were already written,
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (2 Timothy 3:16)
The early church also valued the public reading of Scripture,
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. (1 Timothy 4:13)
The book of Revelation is replete with allusions and direct references to the Old Testament, and cannot even be understood without the Old Testament Scriptures. This strongly suggests that the first century church would be saturated with the Old Testament.

Because the New Testament Scriptures were not fully complete, and certainly not widely circulated in the first few decades of the church, the Old Testament was the Bible of the early church. It is inconceivable that the Gentiles would thus not be familiar with it. I doubt you will find many historical scholars who disagree. [erunma post #12]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Well arunma, by saying that an all Gentile church would have been immensely familiar with the Old Testament because of the 2 reasons, does have some problems.

1. "The New Testament scriptures make frequent reference to the importance of the Old Testament." This assumes that every Gentile that was bestowed with the gift (power) of the Holy Spirit who was outside the church framework of our N.T canon, was given the very same verbal inspiration as is recorded in our texts. This assumes that every Gentile was bestowed with the supernatural power to know the Old Testament....... since it was so important.



1a. "Paul taught the Gentile churches about the immense value of the (Old Testament) scriptures." The churches that he taught in, according to the texts we have, were not all-Gentile churches.

1b. "The book of Revelation is replete with allusions and direct references to the Old Testament, and cannot even be understood without the Old Testament scriptures. This strongly suggests that the 1st century church would be saturated with the Old Testament." Yes arunma, the Book of Revelation is tied to much Old Testament knowledge. However, this is again, tied to the 1st century church framework of what was handed down to us. A tiny fraction of what went on in the early and mid 1st century Holy Spirit outpouring.


2. "Because the New Testament scriptures were not fully complete, and certainly not widely circulated in the first few decades of the church, the Old Testament was the Bible of the early church. Well, the Old Testament was relied on by the first Christians of the churches listed in our canon .....that were Jewish. The Gentiles of those congregations would then have been familiarized with the Old Testament. However, this knowlege was not a necessity because the gift of the Holy Spirit brought the new knowledge from God that was required. "It is inconceivable that the Gentiles would thus not be familiar with it. I doubt you will find many historical scholars who disagree." Well, to those who desperately cling to the translation of arsenokoites in (1Cor.6:9) and (1Tim.1:10) being translated 'homosexual' it truly is an inconceivable thought that there existed fully Gentile churches with no Jewish knowledge!

 

[aiki]

I find it...interesting that in spite of the fact that genetics clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality, it is still regarded as being largely outside the realm of choice for those who are homosexual. Being female or asian are nothing like being homosexual. These things are determined by genetics. Without this kind of clear, obvious connection to a biological imperative, however, homosexuals still contend that they have no control over their "orientation," that they are born homosexual. A bogus contention, it would seem...

As for the matter of the apostle Paul's use of "arsenokoites" and "malakos" consider the following article:

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Malakosandarsenokoites.htm

Peace.

 

[Sketcher]

I find it...interesting that in spite of the fact that genetics clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality, it is still regarded as being largely outside the realm of choice for those who are homosexual.

What can I say, people like ignoring the facts.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I find it...interesting that in spite of the fact that genetics clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality,

Can you provide us all with actual evidence, you know published peer reviewed studies, showing that homosexuality is not inborn?

it is still regarded as being largely outside the realm of choice for those who are homosexual.

Can you provide us all with actual evidence showing that homosexuality is a choice?

Being female or asian are nothing like being homosexual.

Aside form your desire to distance yourself from those who discriminate on race or gender do you have any reason for making this claim?

These things are determined by genetics. Without this kind of clear, obvious connection to a biological imperative, however, homosexuals still contend that they have no control over their "orientation," that they are born homosexual. A bogus contention, it would seem...

Can you provide us all with actual evidence showing that you personally have control over your sexual orientation. Can you change sexual orientation at will? Or is it somehow “different” for you?

As for the matter of the apostle Paul's use of "arsenokoites" and "malakos" consider the following article:

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Malakosandarsenokoites.htm

Peace.

Its not hard to find things on the web that justify hatred.

Any point this yahoo makes has already been addressed

 

[Sketcher]

Are you calling Jesus a liar? (See Matthew 19:10-12)

This passage does not indicate that He creates homosexuals. Sorry, Charlie.

The word that the AV translates as "perversion" in Romans 1:27 is "plane" and it simply means wandering or straying from the normal path. A

Not incompatible with the traditional Christian teaching. Homosexuality is definitely straying from the normal path, and it is said with such condemnation in that passage.