Thanks for the feedback. I forgot that I posted this here, or I would have participated in the discussion sooner.

Yes,
I did intend this as a variation on Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal.
Glad you saw both the similarities and the differences. I can’t claim
to have written this piece to the high standards of OST, since it
started out as just a blog post, so I’ll try to add a little more
substance after the fact.

The thrust of my argument, which I’m
sure has been both presented better by others and already discredited
by yet others, is that it’s silly to say we’ve invented a new type of
(fill in the blank) that is not subject to the apparently obvious
biblical prohibitions against it. There may be good reasons to reject the surface reading texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, but this is not one of them.

While I will refrain from
making this into yet-another discussion of whether homosexuality is
acceptable within the Christian community, I do want to continue to
address the hermeneutical issue I’ve raised, since others have
responded so thoughtfully.

I’m concerned with this particular tactic
because it seems to be totally invincible - we’re essentially saying
God cannot prohibit any new type of behavior we can think up; he’s
limited to banning the sins that people committed in bible times.
Moreover, we’re saying that God cannot even prohibit behaviors he has
already prohibited if we find an exempted or unaddressed context in
which to practice them. The more creative we are, in short, the more we can do whatever we want.

At this purely abstract level, I think
most people would agree this is not the best path to the will of God.
On a practical level, of course, it becomes more complicated,
especially when applied to such a sensitive topic.

peter w. said:

The problem for the gay person goes somewhat deeper than sexual
activity and behaviour, and is associated with issues of identity -
who we are as sexual beings. If the biblical testimony is interpreted
your way, then it is not merely sexual behaviour which is at issue, but
sexual identity. The church has attempted to separate the two, but the
fact is that if we condemn behaviour, we must also condemn the
motivation which underlies the behaviour. Both are equally deviant,
from an ethical point of view - if this is how we interpret the bible.

I
think the whole behavior/identity dichotomy illustrates how problematic
these categorical questions are. More and more Christians are saying
it’s not wrong to "be gay" in the sense of feeling primarily same-sex
attraction, but that it is wrong to act sexually on that attraction. As
you’ve pointed out, that doesn’t exactly make gay people feel better.
Rejection of behavior is seen as rejection of identity, and thus as
outright rejection of the person.

Here’s how the argument is tacitly framed: 

God (according to conservative Christians) says X is a sin, and thus rejects it as an acceptable behaviorI do X, intentionally and in good conscienceTherefore, your God rejects me, since I do something he has rejected

Paul disagrees, even in quite personal terms:

22For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,
23but I see in my members another law at war with
the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in
my members.
24Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh
I am a slave to the law of sin.
8There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. Romans 7:22-8:2

In other words, we have identity backwards. Christ is to be the definition of our identity, and our behavior must not derive from our own self-determined identity, but from Christ’s. We are not what we do.

I will risk sounding like a fundamentalist to make this point: the homosexual lobby over the last 30 years has worked very hard to create this thing known as "sexual identity." No one had a sexual identity until at least the 1970s, and then suddenly everyone had one. I think it’s a valid construct, and useful in many ways, but we can’t allow it to become a bigger category than God.

But many of us have done just that. We’ve allowed this new paradigm to obscure Paul’s clear vision of a Christ-derived identity. This is precisely the point at which
conservatives throw up their hands and point out just how slippery a
slope we’re on when validating homosexual behavior within the church.
How can Christ have lordship over one’s life when he is so tightly boxed in?

The Gospel is usually often minimized in discussions of homosexuality, but I think it is more relevant here than ever: Grace trumps identity.

I’m starting to digress, so I’ll stop here. I want to respond to the other comments, which are excellent, but that’ll have to wait for later. Thanks for listening.