You're not evil.

That's the short version. You're not evil.
But there you go. If you read my previous post, and you should, to get more out of this one, you now see why just saying it isn't enough. Even if you already don't believe you are evil, you should read this anyway, so you have something to say to everyone who thinks you are, and so you get a good idea of the value of a good argument.
Yes, it may be a breath of fresh air. Finally, a break from being called an abomination all the time. But still, it's just words. How do I know? What makes me right, as opposed to everyone who says the opposite?
This is where a good argument comes in handy.
I'm not going to present an entire argument. First, I'm going to cover a couple things that I talked about before: definition of terms and premises that everyone agrees on.
First, definition of terms.
Let's start with evil.
I have to clarify something now. I do not pretend to be all-knowing, or able to speak for religion in general, or any specific religion. All I can say is this: The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a whole.
See what I mean about definition? Now that I've clarified this, you can't argue that my argument doesn't cover what isn't in the Bible or what other religious texts say, because that's not what I'm trying to prove.
For this argument, I define evil as being something that is hateful to God, as presented in the Bible. No offense meant to all of you non-Christians. This just happens to be, as far as I can tell, a common argument, that I'd like to nip in the bud.
Okay, now for premises.
We'll revisit the definition section a little here. I know we just left it, but hey, bear with me, okay?
Some premises that you'll have to get your opponent to agree to in this argument are that:

• For us to condemn homosexuality based on religion, it must be clearly condemned in the Bible.

Again, some of you may be saying, "No, that isn't true!" But the point of premises is that they aren't already proven. Nowhere does it say that you have to accept the premises. But if you do, and if you agree that logic can be used to prove things, then you must accept the conclusion.
Here are some more premises:

• A doctor who studies the Bible in Hebrew (its original language) is a reliable source for information on the Bible. And finally,
• For us to make an informed statement, we must have all or most of the available, relevant, information on the subject, and if we find a reliable source with new information contrary to our previous statement, we are obliged to read/listen to/find out about this new information before we can again say we are making an informed statement.

This may sound like legalese, and I'd like to call it logic-ese. All it boils down to is,

• Someone with a PhD who studies the subject likely knows more about it than we do, and
• Before we can say something, we have to see the other side of the argument. If we find a new side of the argument, we need to see that too. Otherwise, it's not an informed decision, is it?

Talking like this, as in legalese, helps to leave out the loopholes.

If you get it, then I'm going to leave it at that with a request for you, and everyone you may be arguing this point with, to read a book called What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak, PhD.
If you accept the premises and read the book, I can all but promise you you'll find yourself convinced. He presents an excellent argument.
So please, don't be tearing yourself up over Romans and the others. Read the book. If you can't, then you don't entirely have to take my word for it. I'm not going to recreate the argument, but here are two sections of the Bible you can read to set your mind at ease which stories it mentions.
1 Samuel 18:1, 3-4
Ruth 1
Aren't these unusually strong bonds? Maybe they were not openly declared as homosexual. But all the same, they were powerful bonds between two men and two women. And were they cursed for it? Far from it!
That's all I'll give you for now. I hope it did some good.