WELL, AT LEAST YOU HAVE THE SMARTS TO KNOW THAT HOMOPHOBIA DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ABOUT FEAR.
pho·bi·a audio (fb-) KEY
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
The Greek text of the NT does NOT use the specific word homosexual. If you have a Bible that uses the specific word "homosexual," then you need to throw it out and get a new Bible, the translators have taken gross liberties.
The word being translated to "homosexual" in 1 Corithians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 is "arsenokoitai." This word does not appear in Greek writings prior to Paul's use of it in the NT. Paul made the word up!!
Nobody knows for sure what meaning Paul was trying to convey by it's use. If the meaning Paul wanted to convey was homosexual, then he would have used the word "paiderasste", which was the term used at the time for male homosexual. The word "paiderasste" does not appear in the Bible.
"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." Literally translated "arsenokoitai" is a "male-bedder." It is interesting to note that during the time of Martin Luther, the word was universally translated as masturbators untill the 20th century.
Male-bedder has also been interpreted to mean a male prostitute. Which seems to me would be much closer to it's meaning than homosexual.
The Greek word being translated as effeminate is "malakoi." The word appears two other times in the NT, both times being translated as "soft." Taken in the context of this passage some believe it to actually mean "soft in morals." Within it's context, that meaning makes more sense than it does as a descriptive of a person's outward mannerisms.
Jesus, himself, never says one word against homosexuality. If it is the grave sin it is made out to be, then you would think that Jesus would have mentioned it.
In fact, Jesus may have confirmed that homosexuals are from birth in Matthew 19:11. The modern meaning of the word eunuch is a castrated male. However, in ancient times it was a broad term that included any man who lacked sexual desire for women for whatever reason. Hence, their use as chamberlains or officers in the Bible.
It should be noted that men who are castrated after puberty do not lose their sex drive, and historically have made untrustworthy chamberlains. In fact, many women of the harem preferred having sex with castrated males because they could not get pregnant by them.
Jesus even states that not everyone can accept this word. If eunuch simply meant a castrated male or a person born with deformed genitals, then why would some not be able to accept this word? If the ancient term "eunuch" did indeed include homosexuals (some surviving ancient Roman literature points to this), then Jesus was proven right, some cannot accept that homosexuality is normal and natural from birth.
BTW: Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality.
The decision to destroy the city of Sodom was made prior to the incident with the angels.
Ezekeiel 16:49-50 tells us exactly why the city of Sodom was destroyed: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." There is no mention of homosexuality.
In Matthew 10:14-15 & Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implies that the sin of the people of Sodom was inhospitality to strangers.
Jude 1:7 talks about the sin of Sodom as "going after strange flesh." That would seem to me to be talking about bestiality, the angels were not human. Would angels even be confined to definitions of male or female sexual characteristics?
The other problem with saying that this story is about homosexuality is that Lot offers his two daughters to the mob. Lot lived in Sodom and would have certainly known if the men in the mob were homosexual. Why would he even offer his two daughters to a mob of homosexuals? If the mob's intentions were homosexual in nature, then why didn't Lot offer the mob his two future son-in-laws?
Romans 1:26-27 is not speaking about people with a homosexual orientation. It is speaking specifically about heterosexual men and women who go against their own sexual orientation.
The key word here is "exchanges." That implies that the men and women being talked about had known something different previously. They had previously known the truth about God, then exchanged him for what they knew to be a lie, (what went against their own nature.) They had previously been heterosexual, and again exchanged it for what goes against their own nature.
The same would ring true if their sexual orientation had been homosexual and then they exchanged it for heterosexuality, which would go against their own nature.