Paul the hypocritical latent homosexual homophobe CBT gimp

When it comes to the Christian Right's justifications of its own attitude towards homosexuality, people are often surprised to learn that Jesus had absolutely nothing to say on the subject.  This is well documented, and often a point is made of the fact that Jesus supposes all sexual relationships will be heterosexual when he does talk about such things-however, the argument falls flat when examined: usually he is actually talking about why heterosexuals shouldn't get married or how bad heterosexual divorce is.  To argue that he means anything about gays in these passages is tantamount to saying "Moby Dick" is a story about why cars are better than boats.

Paul, however is much more elicit in his condemnation of the practice.
Romans 1:26-27

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

and Corinthians 6:9

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.

Pretty unambiguous.  The thing is there is a biblical account of Paul smacking another guy's junk around.  According to Acts 16:

16 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. ² The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. ³ Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.   

So I guess it's okay to touch another man's penis after all.  This makes Paul the modern equivalent of the high school football player who calls everyone else "FAG" whenever he gets a chance and then anally rapes the effeminate guy in the showers after gym class.

Now of course, this is all taken out of context.  Paul was no more raping Timothy than any modern Rabbi is raping a little boy at a brisq (all a matter of perspective if you ask the guys at B.U.F.F. I guess.)  That, of course, is what anyone does when they try to take the words of the Bible and apply them to a modern context-say, for example, gay marriage.

What's more interesting to scholars is the contrast between the actions of Paul in Acts and his own words.  For example, would the Paul who, with his own hands gently coddled Timothy's wang in the left and a rough stone blade in the right, write:

² Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 

In other words, if you're following the old law of the Jews, then  you're not benefitting from the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Christ.

While these aren't necessarily direct contradictions of each other (ie, Paul never writes in an epistle "No matter what anyone tries to tell you, I never circumcised Tim.") they obviously present Paul in a hypocritical light.  Yes, Paul is opposed to homosexual activity-more opposed to it apparently than he is to slavery-but the story is far more complicated than that.