Bottom line is that since homosexuality is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, it is incorrect to say that it is "contra natura", that is, against nature or unnatural.
Ainea wrote: “...Murder, theft, incest, and other behaviors abhorrent to men occur in nature; so I will ask again since these are common to the animal kingdom should we legalize them and hold them to be “normal” and acceptable?”
Reponse: Whereas, consensual homosexual acts produce pleasure & bond a couple physically, psychologically & spiritually, murder & theft are crimes against unwilling victims. And what regards the abhorrence of incest to mankind, I point out two men who didn’t find incest all that abhorrent: Abraham whose his wife was also his paternal half-sister Sara & the righteous Lot who got drunk, had sex with his two daughters in a cave, impregnated them &, thereby, became the proud ancestor of the Moabites & the Ammonites. Traditional family values, I guess.
If Lot were to do today what he did then, he’d be in jail for endangering the welfare of minors & incest &, of course, Abraham & Sara would have been tossed in the slammer for incest. So much for the universal application of moral precepts
BTW, I perused Rev. 21 7-8 from an online NAS Bible.
Rev 21:7 "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. Rev 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
OK, "abominable" also applied to those who ate pork & shellfish, as well as to men who had sex with menstruating women, those who drank cow's milk while eating beef or are you contending that “abominable” in Revelation 8 refers specifically to homosexuals? If so, please, provide web site with original koine compared to its English transliteration as in my following example of a transliteration from the original Hebrew text regarding another favorite mantra dear to the hearts of homophobes:
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 reads:
“...There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel..”.
HOWEVER, the original Hebrew reads:
“...i, lo'-thihyeh qedhêshâh mibbenoth yisrâ'êl velo'-yihyeh qâdhêshm ibbenêy yisrâ'êl...”
Take notice of the words “qedhêshâh” & “qâdhêshm” in the above Hebrew passage.
“Qedhêshâh” is the femenine noun in Hebrew for temple prostitute & “qâdhêshm” is the masculine noun in Hebrew for temple prostitute.
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB69.htm
defines “qadesh” as “...qadesh kaw-dashe' - from 'qadash' (6942); a (quasi) sacred person, i.e.
(technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:-- sodomite, unclean...
Therefore, why did the translators of the original Hebrew mistranslate the male noun “qâdhêshm” as Sodomite instead of male whore when they translated the female noun “qedhêshâh” as whore? Homophobic discrimination is the answer.
Take note that the Hebrew word for Sodom is S’dom according to
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-he ... 17145.html “...Sodom (Hebrew: > S'dom)...”
There are no combinations of letters spelling S’dom or variaition thereof such as Sodomite in the original Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 23: 17-18, therefore, Sodomite is a purposeful
mistranslation. Got it? Get it.
Therefore, the correct translation should read:
“There shall be no female temple prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor a male temple prostitute of the sons of Israel...”
Good night.