I thought this might be of some interest, given today's weak-willed ruling by the supreme court.
As I am sure we are all aware, Leviticus 18:22 refers to hot, man-on-man sexing as "detestable" or "an abomination". I thought it would be interesting to compare that to another abomination that causes desolation: shellfish.
The hebrew word which is translated as "abomination" is tow`ebah (Strong's Definition). A little earlier in Leviticus (chapter 11:10-13), we are told of a variety of fish and fowl that are also "an abomination":
11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray.
Intriguingly enough, in this passage, all of the words translated as "abomination" are a different hebrew word: sheqets
In both cases, however, it clearly means "detestable." Now, I ask you, am I any less of an abomination when I eat those sweet, sweet shrimp than when I allow another man to "know" me (or indeed, "know" another man)?
I anticipate two potential objections: 1) tow`ebah
has an additional, ethical component to it; ergo, sodomy is ethically destable, while eating shellfish is simply detestable. 2) Peter's vision means that everything unclean is now clean, but that doesn't apply to gay sex.
Now, the first objection is clearly stupid. First, making that distinction based on the drunken "scholarship" of Strong is a bad idea. Second, something is detestable or it isn't.
The second objection, however, may have some merit. Specifically, that the NT says that foodstuffs are all fair game, but that manimal lust is not. I don't want to argue about this, because ultimately that is an argument about the value and fallibility of scripture, so I'll leave it as being a fair point.
However, I would like to encourage people to stop using Leviticus 18 as "evidence" of the detestableness of consenting sex between men, as hanging one's hat on that peg means that ostrich burgers and shrimp are equally detestable and that you should be picketing Red Lobster as well.