Ok, I'm still at work but have had a minute here and a minute there to consider the over-all point you're trying to make.
I'd like to lay out my own understanding of it in a very simple, three-point geometrical form. I've omitted the contrast with alcoholism as it's merely an example (which I don't feel the need to refute). I've also removed all 'unnecessary' wording, based on my own understanding of the argument.
1. The Bible says that "man-lying" or "man-bedding" are sins.
2. Homosexual acts or relationships in general do not necessitate "man-lying" or "man-bedding".
3. Therefore, homosexual acts or relationships in general are not sin.
If this is the correct deductive interpretation of what you've written, I'm ready to discuss it. Let me know.
I would not call everything that you discarded "unnecessary," because it is possible that down the line some of it may prove key to some of the disagreements we may (or may not) have as we continue the discussion, but, yes, in terms of your three-point outline they are not immediately essential.
I would also place the term "homosexual acts" in quotes, as I do not feel, for several reasons, that it is the best descriptor for the thing(s) under discussion. Some of those reasons may also prove not to be "unnecessary." Although, admittedly, there are problems with other possible descriptors as well.
Also, on point three, all of the usual constraints on "sexual" acts apply. I do not claim that adultery, incest, promiscuity, rape, etc get a pass when the involved parties are both male, just because they are not "man-lying."
Given these clarifications, I think we can begin our discussion.
Upvote
0