There are a number, how shall we say, from within the Church seeking to moderate negative views of homosexuals, as opposed to the gay lifestyle. I'd rather not name names.
Maybe ME? LOL
As I already stated on the topic on celibate partnerships, I don't feel any hatred for those homosexuals living in the church, but they must work on their sexual behaviour and overcome it.
I studied the question of Boswell's works and his vain attempts to demonstrate not just that homosexual LOVE is acceptable, but that homosexual SEX is. The last thing is an abomination. I don't have anything contrary to two persons loving each other more then just friends, but I think that the Church has established once and for all that homosexual sex is contrary to the Gospel ethics, sanctioning this in the canons. I firmly believe that the Church never condemned homosexuals per se. When the church condemns sodomy, she does this using the koiné word "arsenokoitia" meaning "male bed", and thus reflecting an entirely sexual connotation.
As for Boswell's misinterpretations, it suffices to tell three points I found that disprove his conclusions (may God have mercy on him in the last day!)
1) He stated that one of the sources of the Brothermaking rite is the story of st. Bacchus and st. Serge, martyrs. In fact, the hagiography of these two soldiers states that Serge was Bacchus' "erastes". Boswell says that erastes was a common Greek word for an active male pederast in a homosexual relationship. I think he is completely wrong, since the word "erastes" (lit. lover) and its passive counterpart, "eromenos" (lit. beloved) are both derived from the word "eros", which doesn't mean (as in modern bad culture) "sex", but "love". In fact, how would John dare to say that God is sex? obviously, he's not: God is LOVE! That Serge and Bacchus might have an intimate and exclusive affection for each other (something like a very very close intimacy) seems to me to be verily possible, and this doesn't surprise me at all. In the ancient Greek armies, homosexual affection (but not necessarily sex, of course) was incouraged as this led the fellow soldiers to a greater abdication and cooperation on the battlefield. But saying that "eraster" ALWAYS implies a homosexual carnal relationship is as stupid as to say that ALL fiancés necessarily have sex before marriage. Boswell's conclusion proves nothing but the great love in Christ shared by these two men who shared in their blood shed at martyrdom the same crown of bliss. Definitely, Bacchus and Serge loved each other, but in the same manner as Jesus loves the Church... a pure and chaste expression of unconditioned love.
2) He stated that the use of Bacchus and Serge as a prototype of gay marriage in the rite of Adelphopoiesis "proves" that Brothermaking was an euphemism for Homosexual Union. This is not the case, since the same liturgy summons figures such as Peter and Paul, who had been more in hatred then in love for most of their life, and anyway could have had no homosexual relationship... The rite of Adelphopoiesis seemed to me to be a celibate life experienced by two friends in a sort of joint monasticism. The two founded on Christ's blessing a spiritual brotherhood, and offered to help each other as if they were two blood brothers. Since blood brotherhoods had been condemned as a pagan practice, spiritual brotherhoods blessed by the priest founded a valid reciprocal adoption in the eyes of the church. Now, that this rite might also have become an instrument of the Church to grant homosexual lovers some extra-grace this is entirely possible, but it must have done this in hope that the Holy Spirit might have allowed them to resist temptations and conduct a chaste life. As for this, I'd really like to have the rite restored...
3) Some of Boswell's interpretations on the Sodom and Gomorrah episode is, I think, a hole in the water. That Sodom was a deprived city especially for other sins (especially absence of hospitality and charity) this is of no doubt: yet, God condemns the Sodomites also for their pederasty, which adds up to the list of the sins they committed.
In Christ, Alex
PS: The entire discussion should push the Church not to accept homosexuality, neither to condemn them, but to welcome sinners and offer them a chance to abandon sin. As a healing Church, we must contribute in the spiritual healing of its members. Homosexuals are often rejected independently of their acting upon sin or not... we should on the contrary offer an hand to them, and show them how they must renounce their homosexual conduct (and not their attraction of feelings: temptations are a part of our nature, and love is always good) in order to enter Christ's kingdom.