'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of the minutiae of what "groups" are "valid."
Okay, so you like to make claims and then say "nuh uh" and then refuse to back your claim. This is not the first, or second, or third, or fourth, or fifth (and on) time you've shown this pattern of making a claim, denying the reasoned argument with a "nuh uh" and insisting that you don't have to actually address the discrepancies in your claims.
I've already talked about the societal norm of marriage.
Not really. You may have discussed it but not in a way which deals with your blatant contradiction in how to handle "a changing society". What if a changing society wants adultery to be normalized? In Mexico, a top Presidential candidate is a spokesman for an adultery website. If many Mexicans feel this way, why should it be discouraged in your view? Or do you feel this is "Minutae"?
I think that's the norm the biblical writers allude to.
But when asked why you think the prohibition against male-gay relations is not the norm they "alluded" to, your answer is
Note, Sojourner's answer is that they "didn't have a concept of gay orientation", however, that's not the issue. The issue is the action itself, which I think I made more than clear, using the modern concept of "homosexuality" to say it didn't exist (they most certainly had their own words to define their own version of the idea we call "orientation", Paul uses the unique term "Man-bedder" and uses "dogs" to refer to male prostitutes that specifically catered to such), the question is not so much the modern concept of "orientation" but the actual action of what they do. So....with that, you have yet to actually explain your view on Romans 1:26-27. Or is that "Minutae" as well?
I also think that the injunctions against adultery can be put aside in extreme cases, such as the dehumanization of those who identify as homosexual.
I don't understand how "dehumanization" of "homosexuals" has anything to do with "extreme cases" with adultery, especially in states where it's legal in the secular society. Do you think gays are allowed to commit adultery? From the studies I've read, married gays (in states where its legal) cheat more than married straights, and in states where marriage IS allowed, they aren't exactly flocking to get married in numbers you'd think they'd want from their vocal protests (i.e. a fraction of them actually take advantage of it) Should their behavior be condoned and tolerated if they go outside of marriage just because they're gay? Can you imagine the reaction if you insisted they stay within marriage if they get married?
In any case, it's not up to me to stand in judgment of anyone. I try to keep my nose out of other peoples' bedrooms.
That's great, I personally don't care either what strangers consentually do to each other as long as they stay away from me, but when it comes to debate on the issue and the specifics at hand at what the text actually says, then it most certainly matters if you want to have an honest debate on what the text was implying. And you have to explain after being asked more than twice why you think Paul didn't forbid their relations. All you did as we see below is play a game of Semantics that ultimately avoids the question and the verses at hand.
As far as Paul goes, I've already stated my position several times: The ancients had no concept of sexual orientation. That's it.[
Dodging and weaving again, you know quite well what Romans 1:26-27 says, and you're dancing the same Semantics game many use. Let's not use the word "homosexual", let's use the word "buggery" instead. What do you think Paul was condemning in Romans 1:26-1:27? I really would hate to have to ask again and again and again, but then again, if you want to prove you're deliberately avoiding the issue by creating Semantic Strawmen over and over, that's fine with me.
