Does the Bible Support Homosexuality

I have been sent the following link several times.  Some just want to know how to address it.  Others are a bit more aggressive "well, what about this?!".  So that I don't have to keep answering the same question multiple times, here is my initial, thorough response to the little 4 minute video.
http://www.upworthy.com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say
EDIT: Original upworthy link has been taken down, though the arguments are common enough.
=Introduction=
First issue, they use the NIV which is a horrible translation.  I'm not a KJV only person, but at least use a worthy translation, not bad commentaries posing as a translation.
Second issue. The guy started homosexual and studied to find a way to justify his actions rather than seek what God wanted. It was a study effort directed at self and making himself feel better while maintaining his pseudo-faith in God.
His first attempt at "examining" the scriptures is to go to each of the six passages he finds (which is not all of them that pertain, by the way) and explain them away.
It is needful to point out though that we can gain understanding from these Old Testament verses but we are not under their authority. We are not Jews, nor is the law of Moses in effect any more anyway. It was ended at the cross completely and has no authority over anyone.
What is useful, though, are the definitions of words gained from examining them and to see what was considered what under the OT because the OT points to the NT.
=Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah=
He says that the sin here was not homosexuality, but gang rape and poor hospitality to strangers. He then goes to Ezekiel 16:49 and tries to show this by using only this one verse. As always, expanding the context of any verse being proof-texted will show that the context actually denies what is being proof-texted by lifting the one verse out of context. Here is the broader context:
Ezekiel 16 is not about literal Sodom, which was destroyed centuries past at this point, but is a reference to Sodom as a metaphor for important cities related to Jerusalem (16:2; Isaiah 1:2, 10) representing the southern kingdom of Judah, as capital cities usually do in the Bible. Her "older sister" Samaria, represents the northern kingdom of Israel.
God's point here through Ezekiel is that Judah was taken care of, given everything as the bride of a loving husband (God). She was raised from birth by Him and when she came of age, they were married and she was treated as a queen. To repay this lifetime of kindness, she became a whore to other nations, trusting in them instead of God for her wealth and prosperity. She traded faith in God for idols and worked every abomination of the nations around them. These abominations would have included all manner of sexual immorality including homosexuality. (Remember, God views all sins the same, so any form of sexual immorality is equal to homosexuality.)
So when we get to verses 48-50, the abominations worked by Jerusalem's sister cities are not nearly as bad as what Jerusalem has done.
But to the point, to leave out verses 48 and 50 and focus on one verse that doesn't use the word abomination (which homosexuality is referred to in Lev. 18:22) is to proof-text to justify self rather than to understand the fullness of the context and conform self to the mind of Christ.
=Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13=
His point is well made here and is the same point I made above. We do not go to the OT for our authority or to understand what is sin or not. This point will not save him, though.
=A Short Note About Authority of the New Testament=
He says in the video that the Old Testament "doesn't settle the question for Christians, but let's look to the New Testament". There is a small flaw in the reasoning here in that it is not just Christians that are amenable to the New Testament, but all men (whether they believe it or not). If only Christians were under the authority of the New Testament, then no one not a Christian could sin. The Old Law is taken out of the way at the cross and the New Law only pertains to Christians, therefore those not Christians are not under any law. By definition, they could not sin since sin is transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4).
So the New Testament "settles the question" for everyone today.
=Romans 1:26-27=
His examination of this text is purely eisegetical, reading meaning into the scripture. The verse says that God gave them up to their vile affections (evil desires) and then goes on to explain what those evil desires were...homosexuality. These desires for the same sex are called unnatural, unseemly or shameful.
There is no mention of love here because real, Biblical love is not a part of this kind of relationship, period. Why? Because there the act itself is unnatural, vile, and above all, sinful. To try and justify it by saying "its not lust if they love each other" is pure rejection of what the text actually says. They don't love each other if they are encouraging each other to do that which is sinful. Nowhere is homosexual activity ever associated with love. It's something they have to impute to the scripture.
Here is a test for you. If "love" is all that it takes to overcome what is otherwise considered sinful, ask your friend if a pedophile is justified if he feels he truly loves a little kid he wants to have sex with. Ask your friend if someone who wants to have sex with an animal is justified if they truly love that animal. If they say no, then they give up the argument that the mere feeling of love (which is just desire, because Biblical love is beyond physical attraction). If they say yes, then walk away. That "friend" is beyond reason and will justify anything and everything that feels good. They cannot argue against murder, theft, or any other sin, adultery, pre-marital sex, idol worship, etc. as long as the perpetrator feels it is right in their hearts.
Such people have set aside the Bible as the standard for right and wrong and set themselves up as the standard. By this, they can justify anything and everything. The worst evils in the world have come from men who have fully embraced this ideal. Hitler, Hussein, Kim Jong Il (and Un), Mao Zedong, and every petty warlord in Africa among many many others.
This guy in the video concludes his argument by saying "its not about homosexuality itself, but a "burst of excess and lust". The thing is, contextually, the very act of homosexuality IS a burst of excess and lust and no amount of warm fuzzy feelings in a person's heart is going to change that. The homosexuality IS a form of inordinate desire because it is, by definition, unnatural.
He then turns to 1 Cor. 11 to turn the idea of "unnatural" on its head. In Romans 1:26-27 homosexuality is called unnatural and therefore sinful. IF 1 Corinthians is actually teaching that men having long hair is unnatural, then that does not justify homosexuality, it condemns long hair. He argues that "most Christians interpret" 1 Cor. 11 as a cultural convention. The problem is that "most Christians" are not the standard for truth any more than self is. Only the Bible is the standard.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes:
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
So, he is talking about what it means to follow Christ. He describes the hierarchy of authority in nature: God the Father > Jesus Christ > man > woman. Whatever you believe about that, this is what it clearly teaches.
But then Paul writes this long passage about hair length and what the reasoning is for it. He states in verse 14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" The problems here are 
1) that nowhere in the Old Testament is this set of premises found. 
2) this is a gentile congregation and so they wouldn't draw on anything but the new testament for authority any way
3) nature doesn't teach that a man having long hair is a shame
What Paul is doing from verses 4-15 is setting out THEIR arguments from those who are being contentious about a physical thing. The church of Christ, however, is a spiritual entity with a focus on spiritual things. Physical things like clothing and hair are irrelevant all throughout the NT. In verse 16, which the guy in the video conveniently ignores, Paul writes "we have no such tradition in the churches of God". Paul is explaining that all that hair stuff is divisive and not a part of the teachings of God.
But to further support this point, IF nature (which God created) taught that man having long hair is shameful, then there is a problem. Paul knew of Samson, Samuel, and the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6). Did God then command men to do that which was shameful by his very nature? Hardly.
=1 Corinthians 6:9-10=
Okay, so here he goes to the Greek words Malakoi and Arsenokoitai and tries to say they don't mean what they have been translated to mean by scholars long ago who woul have no dog in this fight. Then along come the homosexual scholars trying to justify their sin and suddenly they have new understanding of the Greek that has been missing for 1900 years. And after going on and on about the Bible talking about homosexuality being abomination hundreds of years BEFORE Pauls 1st letter to the Corinthian church, this guy has the gall to say that in ancient times, nobody even recognized homosexuality and same sex relationships. 
He is pulling a bait and switch by calling it "sexual orientation" which is nothing but a buzzword meant to change our thoughts to believe that its not a choice but part of their genetic makeup. It's how a person is "oriented" naturally. Sorry, but that's just not going to work. There is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is genetic. Most of the research that has been done has been done through psychology, not biology, and was done through self reporting (where homosexuals, who had a strong bias to begin with, reported to the testers). Its not a controlled experiment. (Psychology is very pseudo-science anyway.) However, when we get to the biology of it, studies were done with identical twins who have the SAME genetic makeup. If one was homosexual, the other must be also in every case IF homosexuality is genetic. Guess what they found. Not even half and of those half, every one of them could be attributed to environmental factors (nurture instead of nature). So his dimissal of hundreds of years of Greek scholarship based on a modern buzzword is not intellectually honest and more eisegesis.
Futhermore, he transforms the word "malakoi" to mean licentious, but there is already a word for that in the Greek, aselgeia, and they aren't related. Malakoi literally translates to soft, or soft to the touch. Metaphorically, in a negative manner, it is a reference to a man who is effeminate, acts like a woman, a catamite, essentially a homosexual. If you've ever seen a "full blown homosexual" the way they move, talk, and act is exactly what malakoi means.
He then moves on to aresenokoitai and tries to change "men who have sex with men" to "abusers of themselves with mankind" (the KJV translation of the word) and say that those are somehow not the same concept. We only see a picture, though, and he doesn't even treat the Greek with any in depth analysis. His argument is basically: those words don't mean what hundreds of years of Greek scholars and more importantly Biblical context demand that they mean. But you should listen to me because I'm gay and you're mean and privledged and its not fair!
An examination of the word aresenokoitai reveals that it means exactly what he is denying it means. It comes from two roots: arren and koite, men and sex. It's a reflexive word meaning men who have sex with other men as with a woman. That is the very definiton of homosexuality. Yet this guy doesn't even deal with the word, just glosses over it...because its damning otherwise and he can't address it head on.
=Matthew 19:4; Eph. 5:22-33=
Two verses, among many others, that put an end to the discussion are Matthew 19:4 and Eph. 5:22-33.
In Mathew 19:4 Jesus talks about what is natural, what was intended by the very design of mankind at the beginning when God instituted marriage in Genesis 2. One man and one woman for life. By specifying this, all other kinds of relationships are excluded from the definition of marriage. So "marriage equality" is a redefining of a term that is 6000 years old and against nature itself. So much could be said, but since this is a guy claiming (falsely) to be a Christian trying to justify himself from scripture, this should be sufficient for now. To sum up, as the old saying goes, God said it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. That first command "be fruitful and multiply" would have been an impossible one to complete if homosexuality was natural.
In Eph. 5:22-33 Paul describes the marital relationship between the man and the woman as a type pointing to the relationship between Christ and the church, His bride. If marriage can also include two men, then which one is the head of the house? How does that reflect on the relationship between Christ and the church? Does that mean that the church gets to be the "man of the house" too? It's all confusion and dischord when this sin of homosexuality gets involved.
=Conclusion=
He ends the little four minute video by saying "the Bible never addresses sexual orientation or same sex marriage". Of course not! Sexual orienation doesn't exist because its not a natural, not a genetic thing as the term suggests, and same sex marriage is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist in the Bible because God didn't institute such a thing. Which means its an addition of man, and additions of men to God's will are condemned throghout scripture (Deut. 4:6; Rev. 22:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; etc.)
Ultimately, the SCOTUS did not redefine marriage. They redefined some silly little laws pertaining to the current Federal Government's understanding of marriage, which is perverted. Marriage was defined by God and outside of His blessing, His design, and His will, marriage does not happen. God designed it as one man and one woman until death or divorce due only to adultery (and the latter He hates). A thorough examination of the scriptures leaves no room for homosexuality as anything other than unnatural lust, desire for that which is called "abomination" and "vile" regardless of how it makes you feel in your heart...or lower extremities.
In Truth and (real) Love.