This conclusion is easily reached.
Simply put, ancient near east societies had no concept of homosexuality, the term homosexual wasn’t even coined until the 18th Century, the term heterosexual even after that. Everyone’s “heterosexuality” was thus assumed. There was however, the idea of same-sex sexual interaction, which was obviously prohibited. If you look to the bible, there is no word for someone who engages exclusively in same-sex sex.
When looking to the laws in the Old Testament, we know that there was no concept of individuality. Everything was done for the sake of the community, for the community alone ensured your survival in a very dangerous world. Homosexual acts would have presented a threat to the community as the infant mortality rate was high and reproduction had to be ensured. Secondly, a male taking a passive role was seen to degrade his masculinity (again, back to flawed ancient notions of human sexuality: passive vs. agressive)
When the Hebrew law was written, homosexual acts were associated with fertility cultic practices, as well as a method for a male to subject an opponent to humilation (see Sodom and Gibeah). It is likely that they saw it as a transgression against God’s established laws.
But what must be kept in mind is that the morality of same-sex interaction was rooted in the ancient view of sexuality. As I pointed out, the key words Paul uses are “abandoned” and “exchanged” natural sexual relations. Same-sex lust was a choice made by those who worshipped idols (according to Paul). To the authors of the Bible there was no concept of romantic involvement, there were no “homosexuals” who wanted to live together for life as a committed couple. There were only heterosexual people who chose to have these unnatural feelings (choices stemming from idolatry) and chose to indulge in them.
Paul was likely aware of Greek pedastry, which often involved the exploitation of a younger male for the expenses of an older man (who himself was likely married). Even in Greek society where same-sex love was acknowledged, there was no “homosexual”, for it was presupposed that homosexual relationships were simply a stage that one would progress through before settling down with a woman.
What we can conclude is that the bible offers a condemnation of same-sex interaction when it is: exploitive, degrading, used for humiliation or associated with pagan rites. For these were the only contexts of which the biblical authors would have been aware. Their presumptions about human sexuality naturally led to their moral evaluation.
The modern homosexual relationship is very different. This involves two people who engage in a romantic relationship, who are committed to each other, who are both homosexual in their orientation (only have feelings for the same sex) and who engage in sex that is not considered to degrade one parnter (the ancients assumed the one penetrated was of lesser worth)
What does the Bible say of these relationships, and in turn, same-sex marriage? Nothing, for these relationships were literally unconceivable at this period in time.
