Paul's indictment of homosexuality in Rom 1 used to be uncontroversial. But over the past several years, homosexual activists have labored to reinterpret the offending passage. For instance, they claim it only refers to exploitative homosexual relationships (e.g. pederasty) or heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. It doesn't refer to "loving" homosexual relationships involve men or women who are "naturally" homosexual. Let's briefly mention two problems with that maneuver:
i) Paul refers to lesbianism as well as sodomy. Yet the exploitative homosexual relations typically involved men (e.g. master/slaveboy), not women.
ii) Even more to the point, Paul's categories are entirely general. The basic principle involves substitution: men sexually substituting other men for women, or women sexually substituting other women for men. Paul counters that sexual substitution is immoral.
And he applies that to sexual attraction as well as sexual activity. A member of the same gender cannot properly function a sexual substitute (physically and/or psychologically) for a member of the opposite gender. To the contrary, that's one reason God made two different genders in the first place.