People stop homosexuals from marrying each other, or try to oppose homosexual practices, not because they have sin in their hearts, but because homosexuality is a sin and the people caught in it should not be encouraged to continue in it or allowed to lead others into it. Opposition to homosexuality is not because homosexuals are special or fabulous. In fact, being caught in the sin of homosexuality doesn't mean that you're automatically special or fabulous. That's just not logical. There are dullards and douchebags in every segment of society, including the gay one.
There's good reason why the bible forbids homosexuality. Just look at what's happened to society as the biblical moral restraints have been relaxed more and more. People are getting involved in ever more perverted sexual practices and general lawlessness, and it's bringing down the whole of society.
I've yet to read the links that purport to show how the bible allegedly doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, but I'm expecting a lot of scripture-twisting and logical fallacies and appeals to emotion and love. (yeah, like love should never be tough aye?)
One thing I wonder about, are all these gay christians happy to remain completely celibate until they've found and married their life partner? (And choose to remain married for life too of course.) Or, since they feel that homosexuality is biblically OK, it's therefore also OK to be sexually promiscuous and engage in fornication and adultery? Since the homosexual lifestyle is so much about hedonism, promiscuity, and fornication, I suspect it's the latter.
I've read the arguments for gay relationships and sure enough there's a bit of scripture twisting going on. Drawing rather a long bow by claiming gay relationships for David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi, the Roman centurion's and his servant, and that the Ethiopian enuch was gay, NONE of which are clearly and unambiguously stated but that is merely the inference preferred by gay people because it suits them. And what is initially postulated as "might be" and "could be" later magically transmogrifies into cold hard fact, upon which the rest of the house of cards is built. Then they go on about the hebrew words for shrine prostitutes (both male and female) and imply that therefore Leviticus 18:22 is not talking about homosexual sex but about sex with shrine prostitutes. Trouble is, Leviticus 18:22 does not use the words for shrine prostitutes, so if it's meant to be speaking against sex with shrine prostitutes why doesn't it simply use the words for shrine prostitutes? Answer: Because it's not talking about shrine prostitutes but about men having sex with men, plain and simple.
One must also ask why the one book in the bible that deals almost exclusively with erotic love (Song of Songs) does not depict any relationship EXCEPT that between a man and a woman. If the bible is supposed to be pro-gay, why the glaring omission in Song of Songs?
So, no, I'm not convinced.
I'm horrified that people would interpret scripture so permissively that it ends up saying something totally different from what a straightforward reading of it suggests. It's like looking at a black dog and saying well because of X, Y, and Z we have to conclude that it's really a white dog. And then staking your eternal destiny on that. Yikes! I think it's wiser to step back from the line, not over it.