Romans

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:

1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

God has not made himself "clearly seen", or even felt for that matter. I can't see the wind but I can see its effects. There are any number of things (for instance everything) that can be explained without a supernatural cause. Despite that, god is apparently giving up on us for not acknowledging that which he will not show us.

Why then should people strive to alter behavior that is natural to them and harmless to others? This passage appears to have set the precedent for fundies to demand that other people live according to their rules without establishing the basis for their demands. Either proove the existence of god or proove soundness of his reasoning. This passage does neither. Just like modern day theists.

I agree with nutxag, that whole article just passes it off and do hopeful jumps rather than solve the problem that the whole book is a problem. I really need to come up with a strong counter argument, because i have nothing for this really

hey rook, i was a religion major (in a very secular, liberal department) and i recall attending a guest lecture where a guy argued that the greek term used in the new testament actually denotes pederasty, the sexual enslavement of a young boy by an older man, and thus cannot be taken for granted as including consensual homosexual relations.  that was about 7 years ago, so i don't recall his arguments in detail, but they made sense at the time.  my new testament greek course didn't cover any passages on homosexuality (my prof was may more interested on the mythical connections between paul in acts and odysseus), so i can't for myself.  are you aware of this take on it?

not coming to the bible's rescue or anything, just talking shop.

I think the lecturer was full of shit.  (To put it nicely)  The Greek is homoiôs te kai (and likewise also) hoi arsenes (the men) aphentes tên phusikên chrêsin (lit. leaving the natural use) tês thêleias (of women) exekauthêsan en têi orexei (burned in their desire) autos eis allêlous (for one another) arsenes en arsesin (man with man), tên aschêmosunên katergazomenoi (laboring shamelessly).  Clearly Paul is disgusted by two men engaging in what he calls "shameless desire" - in other words, two men engaged in lust with each other.  The lecturer seems to be glossing over this, as do most liberal Christians, as a way of avoiding the immorality of the statement.  The argument Alex needs to use is that the Bible is less moral than he is.  His friends God is less tolerant than man, which is an argument he needs to use.  If his friend continues to dance around, or if he suggests that God is above man's law, Alex needs to bring his friend back to reality - if God's law is better than man's, why is it that to God, intolerance is better than tolerance?  There is no way to get around that issue.  And if Alex's friend would rather be with God than with morality, Alex needs to then bring up the passages in the OT where God commands all homosexuals to be murdered and demand his friend go out and follow God's command.  If he chooses not to, then the friend has already proven he does not follow the Bible nor the Bible's morality.  He has proven he follows his own morality, which he already believes to be more moral (not killing people) and therefore he has already succumbed to the idea that his morals are higher than Gods (by not killing homosexuals outright).  

Proves Paul wasn't turned on by gay sex, meh neither am I, so what? Romans 1 doesn't state with any authority that it's against God's law or will (sinphanius points out where you can infer the opposite from the text) just that it gives Paul the willies so bad that he thinks it must be symptomatic of godlessness. 

Moreover Paul seems to think that :

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

...

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

--

ie clearly that homosexuality is a punishment, not a crime...

and is such therein in the sense that it is:

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;

--

which would indicate that his beef with homosexuality is a contention that gay = shallow pornographic melodrama.

In conclusion Paul appears to be saying that rejection of God is equivalent to a life of shallow sexual melodrama - and he seems to consider homosexuality as merely symptomatic of that effect.

I'd say it's all probably just one big post hoc fallacy where Paul is responding  like any typical straight bloke desperate to salvage his own egotistical masculinity from the confronting reality of effeminate men. He's unable to reconcile the real world with his ego's expectations of 'blokey blokes' and needs to project blame onto something and away from his confused narrow mind.

But in regard to a Christian saying Gay marriage is wrong courtesy of Romans 1, well...  it doesn't even mention marriage, moreover Paul is not referring to any kind of stable loving relationship there he's relating his low opinion of promiscuity and sexual drama and equivocating it with homosexuality.

Of course it wasn't serious, Bob.  Geez it's hard to crack a joke online innit? something always gets lost in the process.