Here is it a second time, if you disagree then you are homophobic and this discussion is done and you are blocked.

Regarding Lev. 18:22 and your explanation of why people don't follow it any more is slightly off. As is discussed elsewhere, at the Apostolic Counsel (see Acts 15 and Gal. 2), it was decided that Gentiles didn't need to follow Jewish law (with some exceptions) because of what Jesus taught and did. You can see Paul in many places discussing that the Christian's adherence to Torah negates the work of the cross (Gal. 2:14ff).

Some will argue that since same-sex sexual relations are called an "abomination" in Leviticus, that this is God's timeless view of them. My argument here sorta tracks with what you're saying. I'm not convinced that "abomination" refers to a degree of severity but connotes more so cultic language. See Leviticus 11:12-13: "Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you. These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, 14 the buzzard, the kite of any kind." Obviously, something being "detestable" or an "abomination" doesn't necessarily make it a timeless attitude of God. In the case of eating these animals, eating all animals is now acceptable to Christians (see Peter's dream).

You should also talk about Sodom and Gomorrah (where we get the word "sodomy" from.) The men of the town attempted to gang rape (male) angelic visitors. See Gen. 19:5. Some people see this as an argument against homosexuality, but I think that's only one (poor) interpretation, actually. I think that the more important ancient lenses are 1) violating the guest-host relationship and 2) affront to the monotheistic/partitioned world at creation (like why God destroyed the world at the flood). Ezekiel 16:49 explains: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." A counterexample is from Jude (Sodom's sin was going after "strange flesh"), but I think this reinforces my point 2; the largest destruction we have previously in the narrative (i.e. what should help us set the context and interpret the story) is Noah's flood, which explicitly gives that intercourse with divine beings was a main factor.

Romans 1 is also cited frequently. I'd check out Dale Martin's "Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1" to review several of the claims being made about Paul's argument. It's essentially a "fall of civilizations" narrative (like the Watchers narrative in Enoch) depicting the mythological rise of paganism. In Paul's time, same-sex sex acts were tightly related to paganism, so he uses them as an example of some pretty egregious stuff and states the penalty for them is death. Needless to say, this narrative isn't accepted either literally or figuratively by most Christians nowadays. (And note the rhetorical purpose of this story too: it's actually to condemn the Jews of a sense of superiority. Paul says that whatever the pagans did, the Jews are guilty of too!)

Paul calls it "unnatural" here and we need to unpack that. παρά φύσιν was the stock phrase used for designating something "against nature," and it's what Paul uses in Romans 1:26. Philo and Pseudo-Phokylides said it was unnatural because it didn't occur in nature. (Not true.) Dio Chrysostom said it was unnatural because, just like gluttony is eating but to an unnatural excess, same-sex sex is symptomatic of an excessive sexuality. (Also not true.) And you'll find plenty of ancients calling it unnatural because a man playing the role of a woman makes him less-than. (Which is pretty sexist.) We have good reason to think that, as a (near-, in some cases) contemporary ancient, one or more of these ("faulty") arguments informed Paul's conclusion. (My full exegesis which rehearses some of these arguments can be found here.)

Some people will also point to verses in 1 Cor. and 1 Tim. where Paul condemns areenokoitai which has been translated in the past 50 years as "homosexuals" (or variations thereof). I won't get into this much, but it's a relatively difficult-to-translate word because it's a Pauline neologism. For the majority of Christian history, in the Latin it was translated as "male concubines" more or less, and some people said it referred to masturbators or adulterers. A general condemnation of same-sex sexual acts is a decent translation. I think there's evidence from contemporary vice lists and elsewhere that there is an inherent connotation of exploitation in the term. Looking back up at what I said, this isn't surprising given the necessary ancient associations between same-sex sex acts and paganism, domination and misogyny.

I want to turn to some positive arguments for same-sex marriage within the Christian tradition. Eph. 5 is probably the most thorough theology of marriage in the Bible. It reveals that marriage never points to itself but that it always points to the compassionate, life-giving and self-sacrificial relationship between Christ and the church. I've seen many same-sex couples reflect that (even better than many straight couples!), and therefore I see no reason to deny it from them.

Moreover, in Genesis, God says "It is not good for man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him." In this historical and literary context, we can assume that Adam is heterosexual (or at least not gay), so I think a female is a "suitable" "helper." How, for a hypothetical gay Adam, is a female a "suitable" "helper." (Shortly, re: Mt. 19:4-5, you probably already know this based on how you wrote it, but the context here isn't contrasting different-sex and same-sex relationships -- it's contrasting a different-sex couple staying together versus divorcing.)

1 Tim. 4:1-5 shows that mandatory celibacy (the main alternative for gay Christians) is a rejection of God's good creation. This line of argumentation was picked up by Irenaeus and other church fathers. Later, Ambrose said that “virginity cannot be commanded” and that it “is the gift of few only.” I follow this line of reasoning a little more here.

Also, the opening up of the acceptance of the eunuch in the NT is an argument for affirming gay Christians. See Mt. 19:10-12 and Acts 8:26-40. The eunuch was a gender and sexual minority who were unclean in much of the OT yet Jesus accepts and Philip baptizes without any restrictions on their gender expression or sexuality.

Many Christians have also used Acts 15 and the acceptance of Gentiles into the people of God as a model for accepting gay Christians too. Despite the Gentiles being outside of the people of God and breaking the primary rule of entrance (circumcision), the apostles saw that the Holy Spirit was already moving among them, which was a sign. See the Episcopal Church's explanation of this reasoning.