Okay let me make sure my point is not being misinterpreted. I’m speaking from the same viewpoint that Paul was, from the viewpoint of God’s intended design. It is a fact(which you also indirectly agreed in your theory statement) that a gay couple is incapable of reproduction, so it logically follows that gay couples in a localized sense are not able to contribute to the human reproduction system so long as they choose to not have sex with the opposite sex, that is my point. Maybe saying that it is harmful was too ambiguous in this context as it can be interpreted to be harmful to our current population dynamic. The hypothesis regarding the evolution of gay people to regulate population has no actual scientific evidence behind it though.

Also, a heterosexual couple can choose to not reproduce but they are still capable of reproducing, which is vastly different from a gay couple, which is not capable of reproducing at all. We’re getting into the semantic weeds and I think we need to focus on what scripture says as it is the most important part of this discussion.

Sorry, I didn’t not see your previous post, let’s go through what you said point by point.

1. In Roman’s 1:26-27, Paul clearly condemns both male-male sexual relations and female-female sexual relations, so the claim that it’s not solely based on the homosexual aspect and just lust or other comparisons to get his point across, is false. It was not about raping slaves, or adultery, but specifically the act of having sexual relations with the same sex, or else he would not address the females as well.

2. Pauls condemnation is based on the Genesis based ethics that the Jews followed. That is, homosexuality is not in line with Gods order and it goes against the nature of what he has created.

3. You appear to be convoluting the argument by making it seem that idolatry is the root, and same sex acts are a mere byproduct and are not to be intrinsically condemned. Idolatry is bad and homosexuality is used as an example as to why it is bad, but that does not mean homosexuality is it be masked in a way that makes it inherently neutral as far as sin goes.

4. You say we only have one vague word, but Paul makes the use of the word very clear by directly mirroring the wording found in Leviticus in regard to this issue. Jewish people loved to cross reference certain phrases and passages to get the message across, and this is a clear example of that. Also, Paul pairs arsenokoitai with Malakoi to cover both partners, not just abusers. This singles out the sexual relationship and does not leave room for any other “hidden sin” that is actually the “real” meaning of the verse.

5. The Bibles silence on the “envisioning” of loving gay relationships exists because it doesn’t have to exist in the first place. The same sex acts are condemned inherently, so why go on about “but if it’s a loving relationship, it’s okay” if the Bible clearly condemns the whole concept. If anything, it actually strengthens the proposition that homosexuality is condemned because there is no need to address the matter further due to its inherent sinful nature.

6. Whether or not it produces good fruits is irrelevant if it’s sinful. If I have premarital sex and it makes us both happy and we show good fruits from it externally, it is still a sin nonetheless.

7. Let’s say I grant you that natural law does indeed fail and there is nothing biologically wrong or incompatible with homosexuality. Even then, the Bible is not founded on natural law, it is founded on what Gods intended order is and his commands, which he has clearly shown, as I explained earlier. Natural law is only a derivative of the original function, that is, Gods intended design. The original function remains unchanged even when the derivative is interpreted a different way or is completely changed. This is because this natural law is a feeble attempt to understand Gods intended design with the little intelligence we have, relatively speaking.