There is a debate on the internet about homosexuality and morality, with Rod Dreher, Andrew Sullivan and Damon Linker at the center of the storm. Nothing too surprising or unexpected. All I would add is that this is a sort of thing where reasoned arguments, that is, inferences from axioms, are probably overrated. The traditionalist and socially liberal voices in any sort of argument have to, by the nature of the beast, engage in structured debates which take as given axioms (e.g., the Bible, individual liberty) which result in a host of propositions. But this is ultimately just shadow-boxing, as an empirical matter social norms evolve over time through changes in the Zeitgeist which humans have a minimal comprehension of (probably because they are the Zeitgeist). Two generations ago traditionalists and social liberals would probably agree on their attitudes toward homosexuality, but not on the acceptability of women in the work place. Their premises, ostensibily derived from scripture and the Enlightenment, would be the same. But the terminal points which define the set of public policy and social positions which define the two camps would be very different. Also see Jim Manzi.