Biblical Reason Against Homosexuality

I repeat point number 8 and 9 of my first post: 8. Marriage is about commitment. Marriage often involves procreation, But according to the New Testament, It"s based on something deeper: a lifelong commitment to a partner. Marriage is even compared to the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:21-33), And while the language used is opposite-sex, The core principles apply just as well to same-sex couples. 9. Human beings are relational. From the beginning of Genesis, Human beings are described as having a need for relationship, Just as God himself is relational (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18). Sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person and to condemn LGBT people"s sexuality outright damages their ability to be in a relationship with all people and with God. Also what about families who are infertile are they sinning if they don't reproduce should the person who is fertile divorce the unfertile individual and find someone else? Of course not! This shows that such command is only for fertile heterosexual people. On Celibacy and Homosexuality. I took an oath of celibacy because I have a general disinterest in marital and sexual relationships but not all LGBTQ people have that and the Bible says that celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate again I repeat from my first post point 3: 3. Celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate. The Bible honours celibacy as a good way of living"Jesus was celibate, After all, But it also makes clear that celibacy must be a voluntary choice made by those who have the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7-9, Matthew 19:11). Requiring that all gay people remain celibate because their sexuality is "broken" is at odds with the Bible"s teachings on celibacy. The gift affects the choice and without the gift, The choice should not be made. On long hair. What is sinful about long hair? Tell me and I won't refer to it as a cultural convention. On pig eating and wearing two different fabrics. The point here is that this was a ceremonial sin that does not and never has applied to Christians due to the obsolete law fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. On abomination terms yet's take a closer look. I borrow from Matthew Vines and his views on the subject. The term Abomination can be applied to a broad range of subjects that Christians don't consider to be applicable to themselves for an example just read Deuteronomy 14:3-21 which addressed things like eating pork. Abomination is a term used to describe practices which are foreign and not distinctively part of Israeli ceremonial law. We see this in Genesis 43:32 and Exodus 8:26 where the Israelities could not eat with the Egyptians as well as offer sacrifices Yahweh near Pharaoh's palace because the Egyptians considered it an abomination. The nature of the term abomination is cultural specific because it deals with the cultural and religious difference held between the Jews and their neighbours. It is not a statement about intrinsic goodness and intrinsic evil. I will deal now with something you didn't bring up which is the objection from the death penalty mentioned in Leviticus. Should we regard homosexuality as sinful because God gives it the death penalty? The answer is no and here's why. The death penalty was instituted because of all the issues facing was soon to be a sovereign state and thus maintaining order and cohesiveness was of paramount importance and so punishments were to be harsh. This includes non-moral issues such as working on the Sabbath and charging interest on loans as seen in Exodus 35:2 and Ezekiel 18. In other words just because something gets the death penalty in OT doesn't mean it should be viewed as sinful as there is too much variance for that to be a consistent and effective approach. The default Christian approach has been to see the "old law" as being fulfilled by Christ and there is no good reason why that can't be said about homosexuality prohibitions in Leviticus. God's law in the OT was made for Israel temporarily. Christ fulfilled the law and thus it is obsolete. The sexual revolution and its tension with Christianity are based on a mockery of the traditionalist interpretation and lack of contextualization. Also, I am not a false teacher but a rational agent who has taken great interest on this subject and has come out with my mind changed from its original position after doing my "homework" if you will. Blessings.