Good Day,
Here is a good discussion on the issue:
Is Homosexuality Consistent with New Testament Obedience?
I watched half of this. Sorry, but 3 hours of recording are a bit much.
The con side was national experts experienced in debating. The pro side was two local folks who aren't experts in the Bible or theology. It showed. They were great at talking about their experience, but with one exception didn't deal with the Biblical issues.
In the first statement the con side laid out the typical case, with the typical weaknesses:
* They tried to distinguish between the prohibitions against homosexuality in Lev as being moral but the other prohibitions as just part of the law distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. But despite lots of claims, they didn't really identify a distinction in the text. I'm not convinced there was any. That distinction is useful for Christian theology, but I'm convinced it's reading back into the OT a distinction that wasn't there for the authors.
* They give the usual analysis that Rom 1:27 fits the prohibition of homosexuality into an overall analysis of the purpose of creation. The problem is that this misses the actual purpose of the section. The section is not about sexual ethics. That's not what Romans is about. It is about whether it's OK for Gentiles to become Christians. Rom 2 argues that it is, for two reasons (1) any supposed moral difference is hypocritical, (2) there are Gentiles who have the law written in their hearts and live righteous lives. Rom 1 is the stock Jewish argument that Gentiles are inherently immoral, because of idolatry. It seems unlikely that Paul would start the book with an argument that contradicts his major point. (1 says that pagans are inherently immoral; 2 says that some of them live righteous lives.) Not to mention the fact the Rom 2:2 explicitly rejects 1:32. Rom 1 is a summary of Paul's opponents' views, which he then rebuts. This is called "diatribe style." All major commentators agree that Paul is using that style, and that 1 is a setup for 2. For some reason they don't draw the obvious conclusion that if 1 is the argument made by Paul's opponents, he might not have agreed with it.
* They make the typical modern analysis of the sin list in 1 Cor 6:9 as referring to the two participants in (male) homosexual sex. Forget the fact that there's no reason to think that the words mean that. There's a more serious problem: the receptive partner was almost always a minor or a slave. For the receptive partner to be a free adult was scandalous and in many cases illegal. Would Paul actually treat the perpetrator and victim the same? Particularly since many of his converts were likely slaves and would have seen and maybe experienced this?
Incidentally, the last argument also applies to Rom 1. Rom 1 is certainly a stereotypical 1st Cent Jewish view of the moral results of paganism. But it fails to note the reality of most homosexual relationships in that culture.
By the way, on 1 Cor 6:9. The Greek word that they took to mean homosexual was used rarely, never before Paul, and mostly in quotations of or allusions to this passage. There's not enough context to be sure of its meaning. Various translations over time have been homosexual, pederasty, male prostitute, and even masturbation. The second term, which they took to be the receptive side of same-gender sex, means literally "soft." Until the recent battle over homosexuality, it was typically translated as something like "effeminate," though even that may not be right.