Wow. What are you doing... here?
If you dodge grenades as good as you dodge difficult questions, you should be down in Iraq, doing the Lord's work by slaying the evil Muslims by the Most Sacred Creation of the Lord, the Holy Apache Gunship.
OK, one more time: How come it's not OK for gays to violate the Bible by being gay, when it's OK for you to violate the Bible by wearing mixed-fabric clothing, eating shellfish, and refrain from selling everything you own? All these are immoral and will prevent you from entering Heaven, according to the Bible.
There are 2 schools of theological thought regarding the OT and NT.
One school of thought says that anything said in the OT that isn't reversed in the NT still stands. An example would be Jesus, in the NT, repealing the dietary laws when he said it isn't what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but that which comes out of a man. This was said in direct response to a violation of the OT dietary laws. Thus, it is a reversal of the OT law.
The other school of thought is that anything said in the OT must be repeated in the NT or it can be assumed it is no longer in effect.
The idea is that prior to Jesus, mankind was under the Law. The Law was not intended to be the way things ought to be, man could never attain salvation by trying to uphold the entirety of the Law. The purpose of the OT Law was to put a spotlight on how incapable mankind was to attain the holiness God requires.
When Jesus came he put aside the Law in the sense that he fulfilled it himself and those who have faith in him benefit from his fulfilling it as if they themselves had fulfilled it. Some of the law was meant as an archetype of the christ.
Regardless of whether one subscribes to the first or 2nd view, the condemnation of homosexuality stands because Paul repeated it in Romans, a book in the NT.
So, the NT doesn't reverse the prohibition, but it does repeat it. Since we have a condemnation in both the NT and OT there is no room for doubt that the present position of the church is to view homosexuality as an abomination unless one wishes to be a liberal Christian that doesn't take the bible seriously or one wishes to interpret plain language in a unique and fanciful manner.
