Well it's an example because they're both taken from the same "list" in the Law - in Leviticus they are grouped together. Therefore it doesn't really seem reasonable to take one out of that list and say that the OT law no longer applies for it, while still being alright with the other one being sin, especially since they both seem to have the same theological principle backing them.
You could make a lot of the same arguments in favour of inappropriate behavior with animals as well ("If a man truly loves an animal who are we to stand in the way of it... If God thought inappropriate behavior with animals was a sin He wouldn't have created people who have urges like that... God is a God of love and tolerance and we shouldn't call someone else's sexual preferences sinful just because they involve animals..."). I understand completely where your trepidation comes from, though.
You could make a lot of the same arguments in favour of inappropriate behavior with animals as well ("If a man truly loves an animal who are we to stand in the way of it... If God thought inappropriate behavior with animals was a sin He wouldn't have created people who have urges like that... God is a God of love and tolerance and we shouldn't call someone else's sexual preferences sinful just because they involve animals..."). I understand completely where your trepidation comes from, though.
Upvote
0