Ok..... I would agree with you on these points in a general cautious manner. However, I would also say:

1) "Divine revelation" is often an excuse for political expediency. Examples would include for example the abandonment of polygamy by the mainstream LDS folks.

I agree that this was politically expediant. However, I stated a change in doctrine, and the LDS church never changed their doctrine. Plural Marriage was a devine law, and still is. However, because we also have the doctrine of obeying the law of the land, we do not practice this. The doctrine is still there, however.

When I start hearing the same preachers who talk about a "gay agenda" talk about a "cotton-polyester agenda" or a "hybrid crop agenda" then I will accept that there is a balanced and largely politically neutral approach to scripture (since clothing made of mixed materials and breeding of hybrids like mules are prohibited in Leviticus in a similar manner to male homosexuality). However until that point, I have to conclude that the issue is not one based on a balanced interpretation of scripture

While I have heard of these othe agendas within certain religions, I think they fall into a cattigory of doctrine that was given for the time of Moses. However, Homosexuallity was not only for the time of Moses, as it is mentioned more tha once in the New Testiment. Those who want the Christian sects to recognize gays as normal, and not in a life of sin, are asking God to deny the word spoken by his son.

I don't generally ingage in discutions concerning Homosexuallity online. I joined this one because, as it seemed to me, people were asking the Christian world to change their doctrine to fit the more "enlightened" times of the days. It is not exactly the homosexual issue that I am speaking about, but the general idea that religion has to change as the general opinion of the people changes.