The following is a slightly misconstrued response to a paper entitled 'Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church' by Kim Fabricius. His work can be viewed at the famous 'Faith and Theology' blog in the propositions column.
1. To the proposition that questions of same-sex relationships are first questions of truth and then of morality and discipline.
Karl Barth once said that you cannot do proper theology (here being truth about God) without simultaneously doing ethics (right and wrong) since 'knowing God implies doing His will'. Let the two go hand in hand for a church question. If we are to know God on this matter, who is the Truth, we are to be doing His will. As the Johannine text says so candidly," By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments."
We shall never know the truth until we obey the truth; we shall never obey the truth until we know the truth.
2. To the proposition that homosexuality is a 'given' and not a choice, a normality akin to left-handedness.
Accepted or denied, the church since Augustine has hinged on the doctrine of Original Sin. The normality of Homosexuality would thus be neutral, or more appropriately moot to the debate, if not already supporting the anti-homosexuality agenda since corruption according to this doctrine defines genetics, defines normality.
3. To the proposition that human sexuality here is meant something not 'overly-genitalised', something involving 'friendship, intimacy, and joy' as much as 'libido'.
Such positive aspects of a relationship standing for itself are usually essential to most other Biblically scrutinized relationships like Davids adulterous affair with Bathsheba or the rape of Dinah. I'm sure David was friendly, intimate, and joyous in his genitalised interactions with Bathsheba, over or under. Making stark observations about these qualities in a homosexual 'sexuality' is a polemic best left to those who need ubiquitous positives to justify singular negatives, if indeed the sexuality at hand is a negative. Mentioning the above seems more of an act of desparation than anything, throwing shade rather than light on an issue.
4. To the proposition that a 'Yuk' factor has no place in rational discussion.
Is church discussion rational discussion?
To elevate rationality as a determiner of truth in the arena of the church, Christ's body is to do a disservice to the doctrine of grace. Grace is not rational, which I here take to mean inherant to the human consciousness, grace and truth are entirely secular to humanity and only found by humanity insomuch as they are found in the man Christ. As Mr. Fabricius notably shared with us that the Truth will set us free, we might as well make an addendum that the Christ will set us free, since He is truth incarnate. And as the Barthians would rightly put, to speak of the Truth we must speak of the witness to the truth, sacred scripture.
So without rationality, with Christ as the fulcrum of our interpretive method, can a "Yuk" factor hold legitimacy in the homosexual debate? Was Paul so eager to remove stumbling blocks to his own brother in Christ for nothing? Perhaps the 'Yuk' factor is what ought to hold primacy in the place of this discussion. After all, an offense to a brother is an offense to Christ, who died for our brother.
5. To the proposition that in dealing with scripture we must submit to a hermeneutical axiom that requires homology between our culture and its own.
To present an axiom that forbids the cultural-transcendence of the witness to Christ is in the same act a forbidding of scripture to speak to us on any counts at all today. Where do we draw the line? How can we be keenly certain that every scriptural platitude is in accordance, is bridged to todays' culture and ethical situation'? One would easily call this an impossibility, which would make the Word of God an impossibility. Rather as a Protestant church we must make Faith our rule, Faith our analogy. We accept scripture on faith, not on cultural similarity as scripture, and thus let it speak to us today. Thus, whatever exegetical method we are to employ, the Protestant question must always leave room for scripture to speak for itself; causa finita est. This would include the passages here listed on homosexuality.