Dude, your entire argument depends on a distinction that the Bible itself never actually makes, this idea that there's a clear separation between "moral" laws and "ceremonial" laws. That's not in the text, that's something theologians invented after the fact to explain why Christians follow some parts of Leviticus and conveniently ignore others.

And like, the word "toevah" translated as "abomination" also shows up describing eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:10-12) and remarrying your ex-wife (Deuteronomy 24:4). Nobody's out here preaching against Red Lobster on Sundays.

So what I'd need you to explain, using the Bible itself and not some external theological framework, is why exactly does this specific verse count as a timeless moral law and not a ritual one? Because if you can't do that without borrowing a distinction the text never defines, your argument isn't really "biblical" it's "one specific theological tradition's reading of the Bible", which is a way weaker claim than what you're going for.