Here's an article that seems to lay out their point of view pretty well.
That's not the 30% Will was talking about. That's the other ones.
Honestly, I've only personally met two christians, both ordained priests (though of different denominations) that were, I guess you could say, 'chill' about the homosexuality thing. One was that WWII vet I mentioned a few pages back; he was a massively radical Christian who denies the literal truth of biblical text -- for him, the scripture is a combination of existential truths and moral parables (to greatly simplify things, of course), which is littered with things that are obviously contradictory to the teachings of Jesus (Those parts, are to be ignored or outright vilified). His response to Christian persecution of homosexuality was pretty simple: "That's not Christian." Full stop, he saw it as against the teachings of Jesus*, regardless as to what the bible said.
The other was a co-worker with my parent, teaching adult education (Drop-outs, helping with adult illiteracy, GED prep, etc.). Is a full time nurse practitioner now, iirc. Less radical, but it'd be roughly the same message. Jesus' message is a message of love, not hate, not persecution. If you're exercising the latter two,
you are sinning. There's no biblical text you can hide behind strong enough to protect you from that. If there is going to be judgment, then God will judge**, but until then that man or woman is your brother or sister and as much a child of God as you are. You cannot, in good faith, act toward them differently than you act toward anyone else.
There was some passing interaction with Christians that wanted the legal equality thing to go down, as well. Being fair to all things (Some days, anyway), I'm in a really shit-poor area for finding the good ones.
*S'one of those things that a lot of Christians seem to fail to realize, that the teachings of Jesus, who they claim to want to emulate,
is not a 1:1 match to biblical text. Also, divine inspiration of text is
irrelevant when it's written/translated/copied by fallible human hands, read with fallible human eyes (or hands, for the blind), listened to and orally transmitted by fallible human ears and mouths, and interpreted by fallible human hands.
** Protip: An omnibenevolent god, unless you're using the strongly supported (in a number-of-people doing it sense) medieval conception of benevolence (It has absolutely jack and shit to do with morality, especially human morality, and everything to do with omnipresence. By the old scholastic conception of benevolence, a good sized boulder has as much goodness of god in them as a man),
cannot punish for acts that do no harm. Homosexual relationships do no (more) harm (than heterosexual ons)? Check. Omnibenevolent god cannot punish that. Full stop.
Logic says.