Not everyone has a political aspect to it and not all dissenting opinions from orthodoxy are based in atheism in the slightest. This generalization just makes discussion that much more difficult, and your intransigent insistence on your point of view doesn't help either
Ken, you do realize the term in Hebrew that's translated as abomination isn't a moral condemnation, but a ritual taboo, right? It's meant to separate the Jews from the Gentiles in the context of Leviticus. Idolatry is also considered an abomination, yet I don't see you condemning pagans and such on the same level as homosexuals. And people who work on the sabbath are, if I'm not mistaken, considered to be committing a toevah act.
I'm afraid to ask if you even have a source for Jesus or anyone calling homosexuals dogs... Even if it was so, Christians aren't the only ones to refer to dogs in a derogatory manner: Islam has a certain beef with them, compared to cats, who aren't exactly any better in terms of intelligence, or at least when it comes to eating things they shouldn't
It's as if the only reason the Times even takes this anti gay tirades anymore is if they try to be original. But constantly referring to sin and religion is getting old, even if you present it slightly differently. At least make the fallacious appeal to nature if you want to stand out. sarcasm, if not realized
Government and Supreme Court have made it clear that religious freedom in the largest sense applies to beliefs, but actions are not privy to the same protection. Anti polygamy law comes to mind, but any action that violates reasonable laws or infringes upon the civil rights of another is not by necessity protected because it falls under "religious exercise" and the freedom thereof.
One article does not truth make...nor does one study accurately represent the entirety of the homosexual community, especially 30 years after HIV/AIDS was relatively known about. The movie Philadelphia was just one example. Dallas Buyer's Club is another more recent example.
People may learn sexual behavior, but they don't learn sexual attraction anymore than they learn lefthandedness
Even if it was in the original manuscripts, it doesn't make it reasonable to follow: snakes will bite if provoked, you're just gambling and testing God, both of which to some extent are advised against, especially the latter (Jesus to Satan in the temptation at the desert)
Zablee are you so willfully ignorant that you think lesbians don't exist? Just because you think it is weird doesn't mean it really affects you beyond the same sort of oddity like someone enjoying a different sport than you or being left handed or having heterochromia.
Homosexuality is much more understood scientifically and psychologically today than when those disciplines were in their infancy or didn't exist
Homosexual as we understand it now is vastly different than any idea of it hundreds of years ago, so it's no wonder any culture that accepted it collapsed. Then again, to suggest that it was acceptance of homosexuality that doomed them is too myopic in scale.