Actually, what is in red is the point, and what you fail to do. On Romans 13:1-7 (which is thought to have been added after Paul, just as Romans 16 was clearly modified), in the entire body of Paul's writing there is no other statement even close to 1-7. In fact, 1-7 as a standalone makes no sense at all and is contrary to the concepts of Judaism and Christianity in which God is supreme. While some people might trot out Romans 13:1-7 to justify the death penalty, that has nothing to do with the integrity or validity of 1-7. All of Pauls letters to the city churches addressed both general issues and problems specific to the particular church. For some of those issues, the letters themselves have enough for us to know the context of the issue. For some issues, there is enough in the body of Pauls letters for us to make a good guess as to the context of the issue. And for some issues, we don't know the context. Its just guesswork, but that guesswork must agree with the body of Pauls writing and Christianity. Your theory does not at all agree with the body of Pauls writing nor with Christianity.
Why do you feel a need to impose your religious hang-ups on others? Pretty weak religious faith you got going there.
To not believe in something is a belief. Sounds like here you are imposing your atheist agenda on believers of Christ. Actually quite the opposite. God created everything, to me that sounds like, the exact opposite of weak.
Is that the definition from the Unabridged Fundamentalist Dictionary? Please provide a link. It is weak because apparently it requires you imposing your silly religious beliefs onto others for you to feel validated in your convictions.
If only Orwell had of had access to some of this homosexual promoting and defending material, what a novel he could have written.