Rob Bell & The Gospel Coalition: Male or no Male Prostitutes?

Recently Rob Bell was interviewed along with a fellow name Andrew Wilson.  The topic came to homosexuality and then got stuck there.  What followed was what some may call a game of cat and mouse while others might say it turned into a dia...monologue of questions.  Gospel Coalition writer, Jared C. Wilson didn't waste time in posting a piece on the very topic brought up in the interview - is Paul referring to Cultic homosexual prostitutes when referring to homosexuality in the New Testament?



Jared's opener starts like this...

You have likely heard the arguments, becoming more and more common among progressive Christians and others seeking to make same-sex romantic relationships compatible with the orthodox faith. It goes something like this: “Paul and the other NT writers were not condemning committed, consensual, monogamous” — to limit the typical qualifiers to just three — “homosexual relationships. The way the church has read these texts for 2,000 years is eisogesis. They are references to temple prostitution, pedophilia, or rape.”

Are they on to something? Have we had it wrong for so long?

Wilson goes on to cite numerous scholars (Robert A.J. Gagnon in particular) who discount this progressive view and support the view that Paul's writings were condemning homosexuality as a lifestyle regardless of contextual concerns that might render a different reading.

Jared C. Wilson and Rob Bell are informed with a slough of scholarship that may or not be one-sided as it is reported.  Which side seems to have the best case? 

What about 2000 years of interpretive history that stands against Rob's point of view?  

Is it ever ok for present day interpreters of Scripture to disagree with the interpretive history of the church? 

Does the evidence that Jared presents settle the score for anyone wavering on this topic? What about the evidence that Rob points to?