I was referring specifically to Paul's argument in Romans relating to the requirement that sexual relations follow some sort of natural law doctrine. My argument is that this argument cannot be applied to homosexuality today without ignoring what we know of animal behaviors.

And my point was that because we are the children of God, and therefore live on a higher law of nature, what animals do should not influence us. Maybe I was a little vague. We need to live according to the law that God lives by, because, as his children, we have his nature.

Note that I am NOT saying that one cannot build an alternate case against homosexuality based on the Bible. I can imagine at least one case build solely from the teachings of Christ and abandoning Levitican law entirely. However, the current arguments seem to be arbitrary to me. Basically there is an idea to apply whatever portions of Levitican law seem to appeal to the sensibilities of the church leadership at the time, and this suggests to me that changing the doctrine to accept homosexuality would not be very hard.

I would agree with you. That is why, as I said, I rely on other things. There rescources probably seem odd to you, but it is the only true way to know what laws to follow. I am speaking of a direct communication with God, where he tells you what is wrong. This sound silly, basicly because many christian claim the same thing, and many have to problem with homosexuallity. However, I add to this a modern prophet who gets constant intruction from God on what to teach and how to govern the church. Most Christians take mortal interpretations of the ancient prophets as doctrine, but I rely on personal conversation with God and the words given through his modern prophets.

Personally, if I was a Christian, I would be an Arian (bet you don't hear that every day :-) ). I think that to the extent that the Bible is valid it is as a mythological rather than a historical document-- that the exemplary models and not the historical details are what is important, and that this shows a dimension of the spiritual path which is generally overlooked. I suspect though I am not sure, that Mormonism may have some teachings along these lines.

How did you know I was LDS (I really try to avoid the term Mormon). And we do believe that the doctrine is more important, but much of it is only found in the historical events, which we do hold as true history.