Mangetout,
I would suggest "Are we doing gay men and women a disservice by claiming we “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Or, following that, “How can we, in our everyday acts and behaviors, ‘hate the sin and love the sinner’? Is that even possible? Don’t acts and thoughts make the man? Can you honestly love a person if you “hate” what makes them essentially themselves?”
Also, "If God’s second most important commandment was to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’, would YOU think you were being ‘loved’ if you were being discriminated against as gays often are (particularly the so called ‘defense of marriage acts’)? How do you reconcile that with Christ’s commandments to love?
If it were me, I wouldn’t let them off with a fall-back to Paul either. But then again, I’m not a christian anymore, for good reason.
I think you’re on to something, but this is a little strong. It sounds as if you’re saying that homosexuality is a defining characteristic. It’s just another characteristic some people have, it just gets paid more attention for societal reasons.
So the question your asking is–
What are the basic issues over which Christians disagree that lead them to take opposite stances on honmosexuality and homosexual behavior?
I would suggest that among the answers to that question are:
What is the nature of the authority of Scripture?
How is Scripture to be interpreted?
What ought Christians do when they disagree over the meaning or interpretation of Scripture?
What is the nature of sin? Why are some behaviors viewed as sins (or as sinful) and not others?
I could add others, but that seems to cover the big issues. Other questions serve mostly to refine answers given to those. Also at issue, of course, is the question of what Scripture actually says about homosexuality, but determining that depends upon answering question two above and applying the answer to Scripture. It is important to note, of course, that any such answer must apply to (or expain a failure to apply to) all of Scripture. Discussions of the morality of homosexuality from a Christian perspective are, I think, best conducted in the context of a discussion of Christian morality overall and the role of Scripture in shaping such morality.
Cite?
No, he didn’t.
But for the OP, I’ll see if I can come up with some good questions.
A couple of possible questions:
“If people don’t choose to be gay, does that mean God made them gay? If so, what does that mean?”
“Adultery is condemned in the Bible, yet we don’t say that adulterers cannot marry or have certain rights. What makes homosexuality special in that regard?”
“Modern American Christians emphasize marriage. Paul said that it’s best to remain single, with the exception being essentially that if you’re too weak for that, get married. We expect homosexuals to overcome their “weaknesses” but expect heterosexuals to embrace theirs. Why the discrepancy?”
My post did not add anything to the discussion. I apologize for the tone of it.
i think i could add to this discussion, and i’ll try, but this post, i think, cuts right to it. especially this part:
one thing to get out, first of all, is where anyone who feels the new testament condemns homosexuality gets that from in the scripture, and what translations they have to justify that feeling, as well as if there are justifications for that particular translation.
first, you’ll want to establish everyone’s position on the issue, if you don’t already know it. then you’ll want to know how they justify that position, and i think Alan’s post gives great ways to cut through that. in my opinion, the enlightened christian accepts people for who they are, realizes that two people of the same sex loving each other still love each other by anyone’s definition, and won’t condemn them for something that seems to add love to the world. so i guess my main questions would be:
why do you feel homosexuality is wrong, and why do you feel that jesus would condemn it?
A couple of related uestions that don’t relate directly to the Bible, and which for that reason may be less threatening, and bullshit-inducing:
Do your objections to homosexuality have anything to do with the fact that if everyone was homosexual the human race would effectively cease to exist?
Do you consider homosexuality unnatural because there is no possibility that a child may result from that union, and one purpose of sexual union for you is new life?
Some questions:
::sigh::
Why is it the only times I get quoted are when I make glaring typographical errors? Anyway, thanks for your kind words, Ramanjuan. I’ll be interested to know what responses (if any) Mangetout finds helpful and how his conversation goes when it eventually takes place (which sounds like it may be a while, so I hope he’ll check back in and let us know, even if it’s not for a few months.)
Damn! It’s a self-inflicted Gaudere-ing. Sorry, Ramanujan!
The Bible vs. Homosexuality
I’ll put $20 on Homosexuality in the Fifth Round. Who’ll cover me?
How are the intersexed, formerly called hermaphrodites, supposed to behave? Are they forbidden to have any relationships with the gender of their choice? What if their family surgically assigned them the wrong gender? What of women who are fully female in appearance, yet also have a Y chromosome, due to androgen insensitivity. Since they were born female, but are chromosomally male, are they forbidden to marry men?
What about infertile couples? Should they be allowed to wed?
How can it be wrong to love another human being, just because they share your sex? Doesn’t the Bible say that there is no male or female in Heaven?
What constitutes a “homosexual” relationship? Can two men love one another, and show physical affection, without being sinful?
It seems to me that most of the questions being suggested seem designed to make a case for a particular viewpoint, or to cause one side but not the other to question or re-examine their suppositions or to define/defend them. Those are all useful rhetorical tools, but not what I interpreted the OP as looking for. I carefully crafted my questions to be as neutral as possible and to allow people of all sides to answer them openly and honestly without feeling that there is an agenda behind the questions themselves. I seem to be almost alone in trying to do this, however. I wonder if people are understanding the OP diferently than I am, or whether they are simply unable to bracket their own beliefs so as to approach the topic neutrally for the sake of the discussion, or whether they believe themselves to be doing so and me to be misunderstanding them.
Ramanjuan would, I think, be a Hispanic gentleman with a taste for “Oriental noodles.” 
Mangetout, some questions for your discussion:
Never mind what the moral status of homosexuality may be, what is our duty towards them as Christians? What Scriptural basis is there for believing that to be our duty?
Are the relationships which modern gay men and women enter into the same thing as Paul referenced in the relevant passages in the Epistles? Explain your answer.
Presuming the testimony of gay people that homosexuality is not chosen and is essentially unchangeable is true, what does this mean in terms of how their moral decisions are to be made?
(for each person to reflect on) How would you feel if you woke up tomorrow and found yourself to be gay, given what the group has decided regarding the issue?
A couple of my relatives, highly educated and agnostic at that, firmly believe that homosexuals actively recruit straights into homosexuality. Dunno if that’s a common attitude, though.
Homosexuality is way older, but I’m still not taking that bet. 
How about rephrasing that to a general question about the relationship of sexuality and procreation, if there is one? Maybe also the relationship of love and sexuality? Then it’s available for everybody to discuss.
It seems so far that most of these suggestions are not intended so much to start discussion and allow people to better understand each other and possibly themselves, as to persuade those who disagree.
How about: Jesus commanded us to love one another as we love ourselves. Where in that love are the boundaries of acceptance and correction? Are we commanded to accept anyone just as they are, or does loving them require that we try to help them improve and live more righteous lives?
I may not have phrased that as well as I intended, but the point was to get people thinking about what they require, or don’t, of themselves, as prerequisites to loving, and what the nature of neighborly love is.
Sure, but leading questions have the merit of cutting to the quick!
But what else would you expect?
A supplementary (or prior) question might be, “How easy is it to love oneself?” (Please, no Whitney Houston jokes in this thread.) This might appear to be a bait to “self-hating homosexuals”, but is not intended as such. Acceptance of oneself (or the lack of it) has such an impact on one’s life (NB not “lifestyle”) and is assuredly difficult. (I believe this is one of the points of the new Sean Penn movie, The Assassination of Richard Nixon.)