The return e-mail for this questioner was not correct. I am posting the question in the hope that she reads my answer here.
You have a lot of nerve saying that homosexuality is wrong. Read this article. It gives explanations for the clobber passages which have bee misinterpreted for ears. Then I want you to say you are sorry for your misinterpretations. http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/the_bible_christianity_and_homosexuality_justin_cannon.htm
I do not say that homosexuality is wrong. I do find that the Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong, and therefore I say that. I always make the distinction between the modern concept of being a homosexual, whether or not you commit the act, and the biblical concept of performing homosexual acts.
I looked at the site you mentioned. He makes some valid points, but has some questionable points as well.
His is an interesting, and possibly valid, analysis of the passages in which Paul uses the Greek word “arsenokoites.” Yet even he is forced to admit, ultimately, that Paul is condemning sexual relationships between men. Whether it is in the context of pederasty or not, even he admits that the act is condemned. A male who gives himself up for homosexual relationships, and the other who takes advantage of that are equally guilty. Please see my previous answer about this Greek word.
Grammatically, his argument about Romans 1:27 is shaky at best. The concept of “leaving the natural use” does not imply that these are normally heterosexual men who violate their personal nature by engaging in homosexual acts. The actual meaning of the word “leaving” there does not imply that they are violating their nature, but rather that they are not following any natural course. The clear statement is that the natural course is for men to have sex with women, and vice versa. That he even mentions this as something people were doing shows that the inspired writer was giving an extreme example of those that choose to violate God’s way.
If the account in Genesis were all we had, then this author might have a good point that the creation account only mentions male and female because it was concerned with the beginnings of mankind, and the procreation aspect was paramount. Unfortunately, he ignores other passages that point to that account as an example for marriage in general. Jesus, particularly, applied the creation account to all marriages. (Mark 10:1-11, etc.) He specifically refers to all marriages as being between male and female, regardless of whether procreation is involved or not. That puts the lie to the argument that the Genesis account cannot be used to show that heterosexual acts are the expected norm.
I will not apologize for what the Bible says. Nor, on the other hand, will I apologize for advocating against prevalent homophobic ideas in some religious groups today. In fact, I think it is a good sign that I get negative comments from both extremes of the issue. It shows that the Bible is able to take a middle ground on these, as well as other, issues.