I've posted this link before, and I continue to stand by it as the best example of a decent, brief engagement with the issues from a conservative standpoint. The Romans 1 passage is central to me; homosexual attraction is there seen as a fall from the proper nature for sexual relationships. And remember that Paul is speaking in a world that is not ignorant of the possibility of a gay orientation, despite claims to the contrary.

Incidentally quoting the Quakers is, at least to me, an especially weak argument. Their status as Christian is tenuous to say the least; they remain members of ecumenical organisations despite having long since abandoned any serious commitment to the fundamentals of the faith. Of course such groups are attractive, but to me the company they keep and the persistent decline in membership shown by the liberal churches establishes to me that they've got it wrong. Of course it's nice to inclusive and non-judgemental - but it's not the pattern shown by the New Testament church where most of the epistles are about Christians who've got it badly wrong.

As to my attitude to you: I have no problem with agreeing to disagree and cooperate with sharing our wisdom on this board. But the expectation you seem to have that I should have 'budged an iota in response' is unfair. Paul encourages us to be convinced in our own minds and to live out that decision in our life. I've seen enough occasions in my life where God has clearly intervened to sort an issue out that I am confident that He is actively involved in it. There is nothing I would like more than to be able to endorse monogamous gay relationships - but it won't fit with my understanding of God.

• ( http link ) Tony Campolo on homosexual relationships
[Anonymouse]