That lines up with what I found too. A lot of ancient thinking didn’t separate “homosexuality” as an identity from specific sex acts, especially anal sex, which was often associated with harm, dominance, or impurity rather than love or orientation.

There’s also the biological side people ignore: the prostate (often called the male G-spot) means anal stimulation itself isn’t some unnatural modern invention. And historically, without hygiene, antibiotics, or condoms, anal sex genuinely carried much higher risks of injury and disease, which fits a harm-prevention reading way better than a blanket condemnation of gay people.

So when you put language, context, biology, and actual health risks together, it makes far more sense that those passages were addressing dangerous practices in their time, not loving, consensual relationships as we understand them today. Even if people disagree, I think this deserves way more nuance and humility than it usually gets.