Lynn: Many things to treat here and, alas, I am away teaching so I do not have a great deal of time for this now. Just a couple of short points.  (1) Where is their any indication in Scripture that same sex love is acceptable in any form?  We know it existed and was wide spread in the Roman world, so where is there any indication that "liberty" works to include this area (and distinguishes between the things mentioned in Romans 1 wouthout qualification)? In contrast, we know prayer is good, while Paul is addressing a type of prayer (in form and approach to God) that he sees as ignoring the distinctions in the creation when a woman does not cover her head in the context of participating in a service. So your immediate equation that same sex love or inclination is a matter of the heart and "liberty" alone and not inherently a moral issue in itself distinguished from the prayer example does not work. Another way to ask this is where is there any indication inb Scripture this act and inclination is an area to which "liberty" applies, for that category is related to things that in and of themselves are morally neutral. Is it not natrual to think that when the Bible uses the term "immorality" and this act was commonly widely associated with immorality that that is included unless otherwise specified? Or to say it another way still, without such a clarifying explanation, how could Paul's audience have originally understood such liberty applied to such an area without specifying it to counter the common ancient view of immorality?  A second point, your insistence/argument that Paul cannot understand fully the basic dynamics of what he is discussing here understates in my view what it means for him to be making a moral pronoucement as a matter of faith and practice in terms of what inspiration of the Bible means.  For inspiration argues that God ultimately is responsible for these declarations. God inspires through the writer.dlb