That comment is what I was looking for. Now the big question is, why aren't adulterers, who outnumber the homosexuals, "working their way into the church power structures."? Could it be that just being confused about one's sexual function does not define homosexuality? Or is Paul right in Romans 1?
There's a qualitative difference between gay advocates and "adulterers".
Those of the "gay agenda" are not at all confused about their sexuality -- they've embraced it with arms and legs, and want the rest of us to do so, as well. Their expressed goal is to change church teachings on the topic of homosexuals and marriage.
Adultery, OTOH, will still (for now, anyway) have a moral stench to it, even if it is sometimes overlooked. It's still something to be hidden.
IMHO Paul's point in Romans 1 can't be separated from Romans 2: homosexual behavior is among a host of bad things, upon which it's God's job -- not ours -- to pass judgement. In the context of this discussion, I think Romans 1 offers instruction to the church about what it should or should not bless.