I agrre that the interpretation I presented of these possible homosexual relationships are very much open for debate, including the interpretation that even if they were homoerotic that it does not in itself suggest that God is ok with homosexual practice.

Unless our understanding of the relevant Levitical passages is wrong.

(I hope the Greek and Hebrew work for you... they do for me, but this is a first attempt! If anyone has suggestions of better font face html codes, I will gladly use them!)

I submit that Lev. 18:22
kai. meta. a;rsenoj ouv koimhqh,sh| koi,thn gunaiko,j bde,lugma ga,r evstin
or "kai meta arsenos ouv koimethese koiten gunaikos bdelugma gar evstin" (sortof. I'm not a Greek expert)

which means in English (as best I can do using BibleWorks)
"and with man/male do not sleep/die in (the?) sexual-bed (of/as?) woman/wife (it is) a detestable thing for I Am"

Has been back-translated into Hebrew (by others not me), since we lack the Hebrew original, as:
`ayhi hb'y[eAt at'yai ybek.vmi bAkvti bk;vti al' ar"wkud> ty"w>
which I can't transliterate, sorry.

Which means (again, the best I can do not knowing the languages myself)
"with male do not lie down/die/rape/make to lie down lie down/die/rape/make to lie down ..." and then a bunch of stuff that Bible works has no helpful info on. Yes, the verb is repeated, but with a different case(?), which I have some evidence that it is kind-of like '-ings' in English.

And it should be noted that Paul's use of the word "avrsenokoi,taij arsenokoites" (which it seems he was the first to ever write down) intended to refer to what Leviticus was talking about, and is found between "fornicators" and "kidnapers/slavers" in his list of sins in 1 Timothy 1, suggesting that he thought of it as similar to both of these well known words.

This is at the very least consistent with a translation of "rape" or "sexual subjugation", a common practice against one's captured enemies, and the assumed 'natural' state of women in relation to men (that is, completely subordinate to men).

As there is no other prohibition of rape, I submit that this is the prohibition against rape. By the suggestion of the evidence I have presented, and looking through the "lens" of the Law of Love and seeing that rape is surely more evil than homosexual expression: this makes sense to me.

Love in Christ,