What I have generally been trying to point out is that the arguments generally made against accepting homosexuality are flimsy from a scriptural perspective, and open up charges of capriciousness on the part of the Bible scholars. Now, an alternative case can be made that, despite the fact that Christ doesn't mention Homosexuality, that homosexuality falls under the penumbra of several other topics discussed by him, most notably divorce. In this way, one could dispense entirely with the writings of Paul on the matter and simply suggest that Paul was in error in looking to Leviticus for authority and that his statements of the Law not being binding to those who do not have it should take precedence. An additional note is that the argument in Romans about natural sexuality ought to be interpreted in light of what we know about the natural world. Of course at that point there is very little in terms of human sexuality which does not have precedence in the natural world aside from the use of artificial birth control.... (homosexual sexual acts, and even prostitution, have been observed among other primates. Threesomes have been observed among lions with males alternating with one female, etc.) However the "Paul mentions it" argument is problematic because it opens the door to the question of "why only accept the parts of Leviticus that Paul looks to for authority rather than the whole thing-- if it is good enough for Paul, the whole thing should be binding." Paul's points unfortunately lead to intractable arguments which serve no basis for any real argument relating to sexual morality.