First, I did address the "facts" that you claim I "missed", and I further provided textual evidence to continue to refute your vague and misguided claims.

With respect to translation, I did not make up any rules of translation. The Bible speaks for itself and is clear, and the consensus of translators is with me. In fact, I'm not aware of any translation of the Bible that substantively changes the words either of Leviticus 18:22 or of Romans 1:27 (aside from some potential radical "reworkings" of the Bible that no one would recognize as being the same book if they read it).

Your problem has been and continues to be that you misquote (and misspell) the Scripture upon which you have professed to base your life, and as a result of this you make completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims so that you can retain a sense of moral superiority and a delusion that your Church has not adapted to the times or essentially cast aside portions of the Bible as not applicable.

I have repeatedly said that I don't have a problem with either approach (i.e., adapting to the times or casting aside Bible passages as irrelevant). My problem is with the gross hypocrisy of your own position, and your repeated failure to distinguish how what you say is not hypocritical. You have at no point addressed the key and fundamental question that both I and others have asked, which is namely this: because the Bible regards homosexual sex between men as a sin (and the facts are completely unambiguous on this point; the text of the Bible is quite clear), how can an openly homosexual man serve as a minister without violating the key principles of salvation and redemption, namely, that the sinner must try not to sin? How is your homosexual minister different from an adulterer who openly keeps a mistress and continues to live with her, while remaining married?

The issue has nothing to do with textual contradictions in the Bible, either. There is no conflicting passage that says "a man who lies with another man is blessed in the eyes of the Lord". There is also no conflicting passage that says "the sinner is saved even if he continues to sin without repentance". If there were, your Church could hang its hat on that point and choose to follow one or the other of the injunctions as the "proper course".

Of course, if you will admit that the Bible is a flawed document and you're willing to disregard Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27, then you don't have a problem. You resist this, however, and therefore you continue in a hypocritical position.