The statement is often made by those that would like to revise the Church's traditional teaching on sexuality that Jesus never condemned homosexual sex. I see a couple of weaknesses in this line of argument.
Firstly, as Nick pointed out in his letter to the Methodist Newsletter, this is an argument from silence. There no written statement of Jesus condoning homosexual sex either We can actually infer what Jesus thought on this issue. As Andreas Kostenberger points out, the fact that there is no record of Jesus commenting on the subject suggests that this was not a controversial issue in first-century Palestine. Jesus endorsed the Old Testament and claimed to be its fulfilment (Matthew 5:17). As the fulfilment of the Mosaic law Jesus changes our relationship with it (e.g. the sacrificial system pointed to his sacrifice on the cross so it is no longer needed). How does Jesus change our relationship with the prohibition on homosexual sex? Presumably in the way he changes our relationship with other sexual practices, by deepening their challenge (e.g. Matthew 5:27-28).
Secondly, we must not create a hierarchy of Scripture. Paul writes that 'all Scripture' is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). The fact that homosexual sex is condemned in some parts of the Bible (e.g. Genesis 19, I am aware of the revisionist interpretations of this passage and find them utterly unconvincing) and is not mentioned in other parts of the Bible is irrelevant. This is the problem with 'Red-letter' editions that put Jesus' words in red print, as if there were a hierarchy of Scriptural revelation.
A third point, that should be made on this issue, is that even if a genetic or hormonal explanation was proven to be a factor in homosexual orientation this would not negate Scripture's prohibition on homosexual sex. Again Ardeas Kostenberger explains: 'even if homosexuality could be proven to be genetic, this would still not make it morally acceptable, for a genetic predisposition toward an act or behaviour can never be the proper basis for determining its moral legitimacy.'
A few years ago Erwin McManus spoke at J.M.C. His church attracted a number of homosexual visitors. He welcomed them in love. However, when he came to speak on this issue he also spoke with faithfulness. He said to his homosexual friends, 'you know that I love you despite the fact that I don't agree with all that you believe; now I am asking you to continue to love me even though you will not agree with all I believe.' I thought that his example was an inspiration.