I think that's a bit harsh on old Paul. It's quite likely from what I've read that his comments on homosexuality referred to the practice of keeping slave boys as sex objects - which is surely an abomination by anyone's standards. I'm pretty well convinced that he never made direct comment on functional homosexual relationships. He probably had no idea they existed. The problem seems to arise because he used a strange word which no-one really knew how to translate, and when someone came up with the word "homosexual" people siezed on it as an appropriate translation. At least one modern translation doesn't use the word "homosexual" in the context of Paul's comments, saying "sexual pervert" instead.
However, you and I are never likely to see eye to eye on the Bible if you call it "twisted tales".