My point with the part that you highlighted is that when it comes to this particular issue, people aren't doing that. People are presenting canned researched responses that you can get from any pro-gay site that attempts to answer the question "what does the Bible really say about homosexuality."
And like the folks who first devised the responses, folks are approaching God's Word as a tool to, as you said, support their belief INSTEAD of using God's Word to see what He SAYS.
It's a built in bias that will always manipulate the Word to say what people want it to say.
And this is why I have said again and again, dealing with what the text ACTUALLY says, there is not a soul that can show that the commiting of same-sex acts is EVER right either by what the text SAYS or does not need to say because it says something else that covers the issue.
Sorry, but you are dead wrong. At least about me. And, I presume, also about most of the posters here. In my case, as a conservative Christian I accepted the claim that the Bible indicated that homosexuality was a sin. It was not a sin I was tempted with, so I never searched specifically on the topic. When I came to one of the "anti-gay" passages I read it much as you do because I assumed that the rest of Scripture supported that understanding.
Politically I am in favor of extending human rights to all humans, and so at that time I made a distinction between "gay" (the orientation) and "homosexual" (the sexual activity). Gradualy my political and religious philosophies on the subject were so stretched that I felt it was necessary to search the Scriptures for guidance. Notice, I said for
guidance. I was open to whatever God wanted to teach me, and I was still pre-disposed to believe that it would probably condemn homosexuality.
I discovered that there are only four to eight (depending on how you group the less than 20 primary passages) arguments against homosexual activity.
I discovered that the "Sodom" argument resolves into claiming that gang rape as a political act of terrorism is morally equivalent to sexual attraction. Jude's statement in verse 7 of his epistle is a little problematical in this regard, but it needs to be related to the whole teaching on Sodom to be understood. And both Ezekiel and Jesus wrote of the sins of Sodom, but homosexual activity was not a highlighted concern.
I discovered that the "Abomination" argument relies on two verses (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) which only condemn one partner in one specific sexual activity under certain circumstances -- that is if he is under the Holiness Code part of the Law. In principle, the ban could be expanded to include the other partner, and other related acts, and other circumstances but these expansions are not called for in the verses themselves. To have the force of a command from God, rather than a volutary "fasting," other passages of the Bible must reinforce the suggestion.
I discovered that in two of his epistles (1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:8-11), Paul referenced a generalized list of sinners which included what appears to be a reference to those who broke the ban of Leviticus 18:22, but that none of the specific sins on the list were the subject of those letters, but rather the purpose of the Law was: how it can teach us our sins, but cannot help us atone for them. Indeed, we cannot atone for them at all. Which is why we need Jesus.
I discovered that in his letter to the Romans, Paul was referencing the views of various Greek philosophers (especially Plato and the Stoics) when he spoke of men who "burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..." And that the reference was to the Greek idea that sex should not involve very much passion, but rather always have a purpose. So the condemnation was on the excess passion (burning in lust) rather than the male partner. The homoerotic aspects were included in Plato's original statement because it was more obvious that the sex was for pleasure than for purpose.
I discovered that
all of the claims that other passages re-inforce the ban on homosexual acts depend on the understanding from the more specific passages forbid homosexual activity. While there seems to be a general understanding that sexual activity must be carefully regulated (for example, restricted to marriage), there is nothing to indicate that except for the specific circumstances of the Leviticus ban, that the Bible is concerned about homosexual activity at all, as long as it is not adultery or fornication.
I discovered that the Bible has no negative examples of homosexual activity at all (which is probably why the Sodom incident is improperly portrayed as one). For most sins, the Bible gives examples of both evil pagans committing them and of Israelites committing them, so that we can learn from their example.
I discovered that the claim that there are no positive examples of homo-romantic relationships might be based on the biased assumption that the Bible condemns them. I learned that many claim that David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, among others, are positive examples. I am not sure whether they are homo-romantic or merely homo-social, but I am open to either interpretation.
I said it SOUNDED like something you once said. I didn't say you said it. 
:
