>>3984596
>you seem to think you're the only Christian that's ever had to wrestle with sexual immorality
No, obviously not. Sex is a part of life, and so the morality of how to engage in it responsibly is something that everyone struggles with. However, I am also not the first Christian to have reconciled his sexuality with God's will, which is why I'm perplexed that so many people seem to think that this is impossible. Sex is not some dirty thing that God makes a special exemption to allow us to have under very specific circumstances - it's a part of his design, something that serves a number of different important functions in human and animal life, and something that contributes to the overall beauty of his great work.

>we are all sinners at heart
We are also all good by nature. Or, at least, those of us who aren't afflicted by a specific manifestation of debilitating trauma or severe defect.

>I believe it's a sexual perversion of what you truly desire in life, which is to love and be loved by other men.
I do not want for the love of other men. I have more than enough friends to satisfy my predisposition. What I wanted in my youth was for the love I gave to women to be reciprocated by them, which I did not get. Indeed, the only people who have ever expressed romantic interest in me are men. We can argue over how to interpret that input and how it fits into God's plan, but as I said before I have been able to do good in the lives of people who so-called traditionalists like you (the modern conception of what is "traditional" has been severely distorted) can not, because they can not offer to those people what I can.

By interrogating the traditions you're defending without question, I have come to understand them better, and make more informed decisions about how to interpret them. This has allowed me to compensate for the corruption of the church and the holy texts I was taught to rely on with real spiritual insight instead of hollow posturing and compliance.