Lynn:

Thank you for the note. Your blog claims too much in terms of the theme of liberty. Romans 1 is rooted in issues of divine design, not just "heart" positions. This means that Paul's condemnation on issues of sexuality are not annulled or trumped by themes of liberty alone. In other words, heart is but one element of the theological and creational discussion. Your position reflects a reductionism in removing other key features of the biblical argument from consideration. There is a fundamental differentiation and complementarian role in the divinely rooted and intended male-female design that is in view here. This is as compelling a consideration as any claim to liberty as a moral category. Not all discussions of law apply this kind of a principle to the discussion of other areas, so that a mere equation of law and liberty may apply to certain areas (eg, food laws, worship on certain days) but not to others. 

I do understand the query you have raised, but cannot dismiss the application of certain central elements of the discussion by an appeal to liberty and conscience alone. God bless, and I trust that this explanation helps to supply the rationale for why this is more than a "face value" argument.

dlb