In case you misunderstood from my last post what N.T. Wright's stance on the homosexual debate actually is, I thought I'd post the below video for clarification (at least clarification that Wright is not clear about where he stands). Though he can't quite be pinned down, Wright seems to be heading in a direction that suggests, for better or for worse, that at least Paul and the scriptures with him thought that homosexuality is what you might call a "sin"--somehow against the design. But all this still needs to be debated and the fact is that we'll be doing a lot of talking past one another until we do the hard work of mending relationships.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that though Wright rightly points out that homosexuality would have been a recognizable issue in the first century, Paul's lack of any true teaching on the issue (directly answering questions like, "what do we do with gay Christians in the church?" and "should homosexuals be able to get married?" and even "why is, if indeed it is, homosexuality a sin?" which are all questions to which our current context demands answers) serves as evidence that his cultural context did not demand attention to it as ours does today. Therefore though, as Wright points out, Paul would have known about homosexuality, it seems to me that Paul's context must still have been different from ours in that the focus on the controversies had to have been different and the questions which needed answering had to have been different (I doubt that gay marriage and ordination of homosexuals was something Paul had to deal with).