"The Bible Doesn't REALLY Condemn Homosexuality"

Or so he says. Recently in my online ramblings I came across an interesting essay (or should I call it a rant?) trying to prove that all the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality...well...don't really condemn it. The auther of said essay/rant put forth three main arguments:

1. Leviticus 18:22 (which says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.") is no longer
binding because guess what! The Old Testament laws were completely done away with when Jesus came.

2. St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality (which can be found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27) also
are not binding law because St. Paul was not God, and therefore what he said doesn't necessarily have to be
followed; it's just advice.

3. Jesus talked on and on about loving God and one's neighbor and all that, and love is a central theme of the
Gospel, and besides the fact, he never Himself explicitly condemned homosexuality, so, ya know, surely he
doesn't really mind it since homosexuals have love for each other.

Hmm. Mighty interesting way of rationalizing away those particular passages, methinks. Alright, so let's consider his first argument, that the Old Testament laws were all done away with when Jesus came and established the New Covenant. Well, there WERE a lot of things prescribed in the Old Testament that are no longer practiced, or if you will, were done away with. But if you look at these things, you'll see that they were merely the ceremonial practices particular to the Jewish religion, as well as some disciplines that God imposed on the people to set them apart from other nations (such as not eating pork). All of the things that were actual moral teachings about actions that were wrong in and of themselves are still in effect, because if a thing is of its very nature a sin, it will stay that way forever. Homosexuality (or at least the acting upon of those impulses) is one of the things that is of its nature wrong and unnatural, and therefore is no less of a sin today than it was when God gave the Law to the Israelites. Jesus Himself said something to this effect: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

On to the second argument, that Paul's teaching doesn't count either. I have only a few words to say about this: the last time I checked, Paul's epistles were just as infallible as the rest of the Bible. Doesn't matter if he himself isn't God, he was divinely inspired, so his teaching is as good as any. And even if it was only advice, advice given in words as strong as those Paul uses is usually given for a good reason, and it would probably be a good idea to follow it. Lastly, imagine what would happen if we decided that ALL laws not made expressly by God were "merely advice." We'd have big problems pretty soon...

And now for the last argument. It's true that Jesus talked a lot about love, loving your neighbor, the importance of love, etc. But investigation into the matter shows that the Greek word for love used in the New Testament is 'agape', which is not passion-love but charity, that kind of love which is to know, will, and do the true good of another. Therefore Jesus' discourses about love are not really about romantic love specifically. Furthermore, if one were to follow the true meaning of the word 'love' as used by Jesus, he would not want to lead another into sins of homosexual acts (that such acts are sins has been amply proved by the above paragraphs).

For clarification, the original essay that I read set out to "okay" homosexuality based on the Bible alone. I have attempted to answer his arguments also using the Bible alone. Many people don't even believe in the Bible, so don't pay attention to what it has to say. Arguments advanced by these people can be reserved for another time and place.