Then there's the translation/interpretation issue as usual. For example, "abomination" is a dodgy translation in that sentence and completely inconsistent. The same Hebrew phrase occurs many times but it's not translated as "abomination" in all of them. Why not?
Interpretation too...why, for example, does the traditional interpretion ignore part of the verse? There is definitely a reference to a woman in there. It seems likely that the writer intended it to mean something. If they meant to say that it's completely forbidden for a man to have sex with another man, end of story, why didn't they write that? Why add the bit about a woman? I think that implies that bit is part of the intended meaning, so I think that verse is about gender roles. Not that a man shouldn't have sex with another man but that a man shouldn't be womanly when having sex with another man. Whatever that meant to bronze age Jews. I'm sure some people will see that as an implausible interpretation, but I think that's partly due to familiarity with the traditional interpretation and partly due to living in a society with far, far less rigid gender roles.
Consider, for example, Caesar's alleged affair with King Nicomedes of Bithynia. It caused him quite a bit of bother in his political career. Not because it was alleged he had an affair with another man. His enemies couldn't have made much political capital from that allegation because most Romans wouldn't have cared much if at all about it. There was some "traditional Roman values" politics going on, but the really damaging part of the claim was that Caesar had been womanly in his affair with the King of Bithynia. There was political grafitti calling Caesar the Queen of Bithynia. Even in a society far less gendered than bronze age Jewish society, breaking gender roles was seriously taboo.
.
.
