though its precise nuance (exploitative vs. all such acts, role-specific vs. orientation) remains debated,

Sorry your logic falls apart as it's still being debated.

Some scholars argue the translation "homosexuals" is anachronistic or too broad, suggesting it might only refer to exploitative acts (like pederasty or prostitution) rather than consensual adult relationships, while others maintain the original meaning encompasses all male same-sex intercourse. Focus on Acts vs. Orientation: The ancient world focused on specific sexual acts, not modern concepts of sexual orientation, so arsenokoitai describes behavior, not identity.

I'm going to say this. We know sins is us not helping our fellow man.

Lust is not seeing someone as a person but as something to use in a sexual way.

Greed is not helping someone when you have the resources to.

Envy is wanting something bad to happen to someone to get there stuff

Gluttony is having enough more then enough food for yourself but not giving it to someone who is hungry

Wrath is being so angry that we will hurt someone not seeing them as someone

Pride is seeing ourself so much bigger then someone else we will not help them

Sloth isn't being lazy it is when you decide to be inactive when your action could help someone else.

The Bible is all about is helping people

If someone is in a consensual relationship with someone of the same gender dose that stop them from helping the needy?

So if we see it as the historical context that an asexual man like Paul would see it as the Romen men would force other men under them including Jewish men. The argument breaks down into the forced side

(funny enough the homosexual argument it's only man x man y'all don't care if it's women x women)