I have a partial answer. One is for Romans 1:26-27.
To better understand Rom 1:26-27 we need to place it back into it's context. Why is Paul writing a letter to the Romans?
Paul intended to visit Rome, and he wanted the Christian church there to welcome him. But the Christians in Rome were a mix of both Jewish and Gentile converts who were often at each other's throats. Paul wants to promote harmony between these two warring factions, to bring them together, to unite them. But how is Paul going to accomplish this seemingly impossible task? How did Paul handle this matter? Pretty shrewdly. Paul's plan, an outline of his letter to the Romans, is:
[*]First gain the sympathy of the Jewish Christians by seeming to side with their prejudices;
[*]Then show that the Jewish Christians were as guilty as anyone else in breaking the Jewish Law;
[*]Then argue that in Christ the Jewish Law was superseded and that, above all, purity issues in the Law do not matter; and thus incline the Jewish Christians to better acceptance of the Gentile Christians;
[*]and finally, rebuke the Gentile Christians sharply for any smugness they might by then be feeling.
So, following this plan, Paul begins his letter by appearing to sympathize with the common Jewish feeling that the Gentiles are dirty. Those dirty Gentiles, they do all sorts of impure things, like having sex with other men.
But already by chapter 2 Paul turns the tables on the Jewish Christians and rejects their prejudices:
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." -Rom 2:1
Paul's ploy is to hook the Jewish Christians on their sense of superiority over the Gentile impurities, and then use this Jewish prejudice to teach his lesson about Christian community.
To insure the unity of believers was a major reason for Paul's writing. Paul insisted on faith and love as the things that really matter in Christ. Stop arguing about what's dirty or clean; stop disputing who's pure and impure; stop begin zealous in social prejudice and sexual self-righteousness; stop pitting heterosexual against homosexual; stop dividing and splintering the church over what does not matter in Christ.
In Romans, homogenitality serves merely as an instance of Gentile "uncleanness", judged by Jewish standards. Paul introduces this "uncleanness" precisely to make the point that such matters have no importance in Christ. The Letter to the Romans certainly does not consider homogenital acts to be sinful. Indeed, the success of Paul's letter to the Romans depends on this being so.
But we have a problem here. If you feel that homosexuality is OK then you've found the supporting argument you wanted and you'll stop here-just like the conservatives stopped when they found their supporting argument in Rom 1-26,27. But how do we know this is the right place to stop? Maybe there's more, and we should keep searching. Or should we? When do we stop searching? Perhaps our very method of "searching for an answer" is flawed. Perhaps "searching for an answer" by it's very nature can not give us a definitive answer, because we'll never know when to stop searching and be satisfied with what we've found so far.
A completely different, non-thinking approach, is to go the experience and feeling approach, for which I have this quote:
"Interestingly enough, authoritarian followers show a remarkable capacity for change IF they have some of the important experiences. For example, they are far less likely to have known a homosexual (or realized an acquaintance was homosexual) than most people. But if you look at the high RWAs who do know someone gay or lesbian, they are much less hostile toward homosexuals in general than most authoritarians are. Getting to know a homosexual usually makes one more accepting of homosexuals as a group. Personal experiences can make a lot of difference, which is a truly hopeful discovery. The problem is, most right-wing authoritarians won't willingly exit their small world and try to meet a gay. They're too afraid. And "coming out" to a high RWA acquaintance might have long-term beneficial effects on him, but it would likely carry some risks for the outgoing person."
by Bob Altemeyer
Department of Psychology
University of Manitoba
Oh, and Betty Bowers has a wonderful humorous video:
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else