Unconvincing arguments for and against homosexual marriage and/or ordination

Homosexuality and its place in civil and religious life has been beat to death and I don't feel like I have any special insight to offer that hasn't been offered before.  However, as I continue to hear the debate, either in the context of same sex marriage or ordination of homosexuals, I have encountered a number of arguments which I find wholly unconvincing.  These points are cited at times as if they are the only necessary data point to draw a conclusion and the conclusion that follows is obvious and unassailable.  However, I find the points lacking in many respects.

I will attempt to portray the points fairly and avoid creating straw men, but I admit that the reason these points are listed here is that I think they are much more complex and subtle than they are often presented to be.  I do not intend to take either side in this post, but simply want to push back against some points from each side that I think are oversimplifications.

Unconvincing points from the "left":

1) Homosexuality is natural.  Other animals engage in homosexual behavior and that homosexual desire is not chosen but is something a person is born with.  The assumption is then that God created it and it must therefore be good.  

Counter point:  There are lots of things that are natural and not chosen but innate and that are exhibited in the animal kingdom but are decidedly bad and we would hesitate to say God created them.  When someone does wrong to me, I have the desire to do wrong to them, but society, morals, faith, and a whole host of other forces say that it's not okay to act on that desire.

2) This is like the civil rights movement and in 50 years everyone will look back and think those who opposed gay rights were all ignorant bigots.  Among younger generations, there is overwhelming support for gay rights and as those younger generations grow up, their views will be the social norm.

Counter point: So?  Seriously though, comparing gay rights and civil rights is helpful to a certain point, but there are distinct differences in the issues at hand (i.e. one is a behavior, one is not).  More importantly, I hope nobody changes their position on an important issue because of what people 50 years from now will think of them.  I have a number of views which younger generations probably think are outdated, misguided, and ignorant but I still think are right.  Should I change them just because 50 years from now, people will think I'm ignorant?

3) The reason the church is dying is because we don't support gay rights.

Counter point: There are many reasons the church is dying, but this is not one of them.  There are growing churches in all different parts of the country that unequivocally do not support gay rights and still bring people to Christ.

Unconvincing points from the "right":

1) The bible says it's an abomination.  Leviticus, etc. etc.

Counter point: The bible says a lot of things.  It tells us to stone people.  It tells us not to eat pork.  It tells women not to go to church with braided hair.  Taking passages and especially commandments out of their historical context or even out of the context within scripture is troublesome.  Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying we can ignore what the bible says, nor am I saying that we can just hand wave away parts of the bible we don't like.  My point is that everyone interprets the bible when they read it.  Even the most staunch literalist is not going around stoning adulterers because it's a) against the law b) clearly against Christ's broader teaching.  We interpret the bible because it was written thousands of years ago, thousands of miles away and things might not all apply exactly the same way now as they did back then.  That's not to say "the bible says so" isn't a valid argument, just that it isn't the be all and end all of arguments.  There is room for interpretation in every passage.

As a side note, I still don't understand from a strictly biblical perspective, why we're okay without blanket rules about ordaining divorcees, adulterers, addicts, and even murderers, but we need a blanket rule about ordaining homosexuals.

2) "Next they'll want to marry animals."

Counterpoint: One of two things is going on in this argument.  Either it's comparing living, thinking, feeling, loving human beings to animals, in which case it doesn't deserve any consideration at all or, much like the "50 years from now" argument from the "left," it's dealing with something that isn't a reality, may never be a reality, and probably shouldn't influence us anyway.  If we think it's wrong for human beings to marry animals, what does that have to do with human beings of the same gender marrying each other.  We should treat the issue on its own merit, not on some imagined, possible extension of it that may or may not occur 50 years from now and may or may not have anything to do with the current issue at hand.

3) The founding fathers <or other historical figures> believed <whatever>

Counterpoint: This is one that has always puzzled me a little bit, even in politics, but especially in moral and religious realms.  I would hope that in the last 200+ years we've learned something which might make us better informed than our founding fathers.  Even setting aside the discussion of the religiosity of the founding fathers (and Jefferson in particular), what does their understanding of marriage 200+ years ago have to do with us today?  Isn't the whole point of the system of government that they created that it can change to adapt to the times and to the will of the people, rather than being set in stone once and for all?

4) The reason the church is dying is because we don't condemn homosexuality and we've lost sight of God.

Counter point: There are many reasons the church is dying, but this is not one of them.  There are growing churches in all different parts of the country that unequivocally support gay rights and still bring people to Christ.

Conclusion

This question is not a "one liner."  There is no simple argument which opens and shuts the case in one sentence.  It's tempting to assume that people who disagree with us are not "really" Christian or are ignorant, brainwashed, unfaithful, or "don't really believe in God."  That last one in particular strikes me as the last resort of arrogance.  Is it really not possible that someone else with a whole life of different experiences and teachings could love God and come to a different conclusion?  Have we really never changed our mind or position about anything and felt like we were faithful through the process?

This question is complex, subtle, important, and difficult.  Even tried and true patterns of compromise like "Agree to disagree" and "love the sinner, hate the sin" don't really work when passions are so high.  For a while I took the position "Why are we spending so much time and money arguing about this when there are much more important issues to deal with?" but even that position makes an assumption about the relative importance of different issues.  There are definitely faithful Christians on both sides for whom this issue is THE top priority in the ongoing faithfulness of the church.

I wish I had something more useful to say about what we should do instead of just refuting a bunch of points and then not adding anything positive to the conversation, but I don't.  I guess my approach at this point is to speak my voice and vote my conscience when given the opportunity, but generally not to go looking for a fight.  I fully understand that for some, this is a matter of justice and for others it is a matter of purity and both require more urgency than I have expressed.  I hope that whatever your position and whatever your level of urgency, you can see my approach as a faithful one rooted in my love of God and my desire to love my neighbor as myself and I hope that I can see your position in the same light.