I try to stay away from a legalistic approach to teaching both religion and morality. It's too easy to get boxed into absolutes that way, and both religion and morality are not exact sciences.

Ed's link to the article on Buddhist views on homosexuality, makes a lot of sense. Here's an excerpt:

Buddhism is most concerned with whether an action is helpful, based on good intentions, and freedom from harm. Thus, a specific act can sometimes be either permissible or not permissible, depending upon its context. This differs from the positions taken by conservative faith groups within Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They often evaluate a specific action itself, based on whether it is good or evil according to a system of morality derived from that group's interpretation of their holy text(s).

Christian morality usually starts with a uniform rule, and then mitigates or absolves actions based on extenuating circumstances. Ideally, the Buddhist and traditional Christian approaches to morality should come to the same conclusion, but from different directions. I think St. Thomas Aquinas would be more comfortable with Buddhist morality, than are most moral theologians who have come after Aquinas.

Some people tell me that I'm "not really Catholic" or "not really Christian" because I refuse to take a legalistic approach to morality. I think Jesus Christ (and Thomas Aquinas) would agree with my more compassionate approach. I don't reject "the rules" - they are an important part of making moral decisions, but they are not the only proper guide to what's right and wrong. It's important to weigh the factors.

-Joe-