“The first problem is that scripture never declared homosexuality a sin, it is erroneous to label homosexuals as non christian.”
Both the OT and the NT classify homosexual behavior as a sin. And, in Rom 1, Paul goes beyond that to classify homosexual desire (as well as homosexual behavior) a sin.
Moreover, some sins are worse than others, just as some crimes are worse than others. Not every crime in the OT was capital offense. But sodomy was. That tells you something about the moral gravity of the offense.
“Homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals.”
You could say the same thing about the criminal element.
“They are not less a brother, friend, attorney, teacher, counselor ,doctor,neighbor,father, etc so what evidence do have that being foster parents is somewhat different.”
i) You’re confounding biological relations with social roles. By definition, one can’t be more or less a biological father or brother. That’s hardwired.
ii) Apropos (i), we don’t choose our biological parents or biological siblings. For better or worse, we’re stuck with them. So, frankly, the standard is lower.
But we can and should have a higher standard when placing children in the custody of strangers.
iii) Being a biological father doesn’t automatically qualify you to be a good father. Being a doctor, lawyer, teacher, counselor, &c. doesn’t automatically qualify you to be a good parent. So your argument is illogical.
Moreover, one could be a brilliant doctor or lawyer, and also be a dreadful parent. Excellence in one field doesn’t carry over to excellence in another field. So, once again, your argument is illogical.
“Homosexuals bond out of the same spirit as heterosexuals, which is out of mutual love, respect,affection,devotion, and trust for a shared committed life together.”
That’s a silly statement at several levels:
i) It isn’t even a true statement with respect to heterosexual bonding. You can’t say, as a rule, that heterosexuals bond “out of mutual love, respect,affection,devotion, and trust for a shared committed life together.”
Some do and some don’t. Ever heard of prostitution? Adultery? Hook-ups? One-night stands? Womanizers? Nymphomaniacs? Prenups?
Left to their own devices, a lot of men prefer a no-strings-attached relationship.
ii) Moreover, the sexes are wired differently. Normal men and women don’t necessarily bond for the very same reasons. Isn’t that obvious?
Take the case of the rich old geezer with the twenty-something bombshell wife or girlfriend. Do you really think the old geezer and the young woman are bonding for the same reasons? And is it really out of mutual respect, devotion, and lifelong commitment?
Or is it more like he marries (or shacks up with) her for sex while she marries (or shacks up with) him for money?
I'm not saying that men and women can't marry for better reasons (and often do). I'm just noting some really obvious counterexamples to your bubble-gummy claims.
iii) And this carries over into homosexual “bonding.” You can’t claim that homosexual men and homosexual women have the very same motives.
“What part of that committed love do you feel is offensive to a child.”
How is your definition distinguishable from pederasty—or is it?
“The truth is that children because they are children have less a problem with homosexuality than adults.”
Likewise, the son of a Klansman is more likely to grow up to be a Klansman—just like his old man. Like father/like son. Due to his emotional bond with a dad who's a Klansman, he has less of a problem with the KKK than some adults.
“What part of the spirit of this bonding process mitigates providing a loving nurturing home for raising children?”
A higher incidence of disease, domestic violence, suicide, rampant promiscuity, as well as unnatural role-modeling. They are also at higher risk of sexual molestation when they hit adolescence.
“Fine, then explain romans 1:24-27 how do the words of these verses say homosexuality is a sin. do you propose to transpose the word "homosexuals for all the personal pronouns?”
The question at issue is not the use of the word, but the use of the concept. In Rom 1, Paul both describes and condemns homosexual desire and conduct alike.