I wanted to post an answer to this thread but didn’t want to get bogged down with the whole pro-gay and anti-gay exegesis debate. But I think the key issue here is more than “Why do Christians find their obviously anti-Biblical behavior Biblically compatible” or “Why do Christians insist on misinterpreting the Bible in a way that makes other suffer needlessly.”
One of my previous problems with Rabbinic Judaism was its seeming arbitrariness: rabbis (the ancient Sages and modern rabbis) used what seemed to be convoluted mental gymnastics to get from point A to point 3. Sometimes they wanted some justification for something they found should be right (somewhat along the lines of, “If it isn’t in the Scripture, it should be.”), or trying to implement what seems to be an obsolete law, etc. In the end, many rules were explained or justified by appealing to the Oral Law of Moses from Sinai. (The belief goes that Moses received two laws: the Written Law, known as the Torah and inscribed on scrolls, and the Oral Law, passed down from Moses and now inscribed in the Talmud.) Something cannot be justified from the text? “Oral Law.” Explain this random rule. “Oral Law.” You get my drift.
What impressed me later on was just how honest the Jews are. If you think about it, every single religion relies on an Oral Law that is just as binding (or even more binding) than the Written Law (whatever its counterpart in that religion may be). This is because no written work can possibly contain all the rules or dictates for living a life in accordance with that religion. At prayer do you sit or stand or kneel or bow? What do you say and how do you say it and to whom do you say it and in what language and when and how many times? How does one join the religion and who performs the ceremony and what requirements are there and when can it be done and who may attend it and why is it done and what happens thereafter? The list goes on and on and on and on. So, the Jews were frank: “Where did you get this from?” “Oral Law.” Case closed. The same goes for attitudes and morals: how are we supposed to feel about this? how are we supposed to feel about God?
Now, different people call this by different names: Oral Law, Tradition, Councils, Decrees, Holy Words of the Prophet/Lord/God/Goddess/Lady/Mother/Father, Reason, etc.
A good example in Judaism: the Bible says to wear signs on the hands and between one’s eyes. It says to put mezuzot on the doorways. And then it’s silent. Nothing, whatsoever, about how to do so or even what it’s talking about. The Oral Law enters, and everything is explained/decreed/solved.
Now we come to a touchy issue: just as the Oral Law and its decrees change (I’m sure the ancient Israelites didn’t argue over whether to attach the mezuzah upright or horizontal, which argument erupted when Sefardim met Ashkenazim and ended with today’s compromise of attaching it slanted) over time and are added to as times change, the same may be said about attitudes and morals. The attitudes and morals of the Jews during the First Temple were different from those in the Second Temple and from those now. People change. Modernity challenges the established order, and the order adopts, rejects, or ignores, but a response is formulated either way.
And so we come to different movements with different attitudes and different morals. And this permits Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc., to accept de facto (despite what the old Written and Oral Laws may say) homosexuality or premarital sex or adultery or divorce or pedobaptism or charging interest rates. Look at how many Israelites practiced idolatry (for which they were eventually punished, according to the Bible, but still the point is that there was no large taboo on it), or how Christians engaged in violence, or how Muslim groups believe in doctrines that seem to contradict what the ancient authorities have stated.
So, the question of how Christians can justify their homosexuality while accepting the Bible as valid, becomes moot. This happens because it’s bound to: modernity challenged the old order, and a portion of the old order responded by adapting and accepting the challenge’s claims.
No one can really say who is right or wrong, really. Religions simply exist: they are human phenomena, they are not conscious or self-aware that they can decree what is right or wrong within itself. If people want to justify something, they will find some justification. It may seem far-fetched, but a way will be found. It’s all about interpretation (of old texts and old traditions) and finding a way to live as faithfully as possible (according to one’s own views) in this modern world.
WRS