You've not engaged with my challenge to your approach of seeing that gay relationships are 'good' as evidence they are blessed of God. Instead you've phrased it 'lust is not a factor in keeping the relationship together' whereas I've explicitly moved away from that argument. Yes these relationships can be 'good' because they are reaping what is sown into them - but THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE THEY ARE BLESSED BY GOD. Any more than Bill Gates' billions are evidence that he is blessed by God.

Similarly you seem to be constructing a straw man in assuming that I would defend slavery on biblical grounds. Again a proper reading of the bible comes to rather different conclusions, and I in no way endorse the suggestion that the bible teaches that the descendants of Ham are cursed for all time. However I will admit that I overstated the case for society's traditions in contrast to what God commands; specifically marriage is a creation ordinance, and its abandonment or marginalisation in modern society (with the prevalence of easy divorce) is the crucial failure. In practice a less than Christian society will inevitable resort to taboos to enforce proper behaviour; when these break down then indeed Pandora's box is opened. But we have to test out what is really of God, and what is merely tradition: I remember one occasion on my church council when some women wanted to encourage the use of inclusive language in services (not about God, but wherever possible). They were surprised when I supported them, but to me it is obvious that given the change in the meaning of language, it is entirely appropriate that thing should be redone. My pastor at my university described the attitude as radical conservative - a willingness to look very hard at what the bible ACTUALLY says rather than what we think it does. But when it is unambiguous - and for me it is unambiguous on the gay issue - we have to hold firmly to what it says.