That's correct, but irrelevant to the discussion. I would argue that many homosexuals also are not acting out of sexual lust, any more than heterosexuals are. So the problem isn't homosexuality, it's lust.
An assertion in your post was made about what Hosea did that was meant to cast a Biblical view of marriage in a very poor light. Given Hosea did nothing wrong - I think it is relevant to this discussion that this attempt was a fail in that regard. To someone unfamiliar with the story Hosea's story, saying that he married a "prostitute" could indeed sound like a lust situation and also grossly mis-characterizes the story.
Most sexual sins do begin as thoughts, then lust before an act is committed. So yes, all homosexuals engaging in sex (married or not) are giving in to that lust same as any heterosexual having sex outside marriage. Giving into such lust was a point of several NT quotes others gave about homosexual activity, which as I recall, like the idea of Biblical marriage, were also dismissed.
I won't comment on this because I don't understand what you mean.
If that part of my post was not understood then neither was the Bible reference understood given for Hosea allegedly marrying a "prostitute" in the attempt to smear a Biblical concept of marriage. God had Hosea marry a pagan for a reason - understanding that reason should help one understand what I meant.
Also correct, but that fact doesn't say anything about homosexual relationships, or any other type of relationship for that matter. It obviously didn't exclude polygamy or concubines. You can't base your argument on what is not said.
No. "That fact" regarding your list of OT marriage says a lot about what was allowed because of the weaknesses of men. Same sex marriage and any other sort of marriage is absent from the list because it was not allowed because they knew it was wrong. And we know it was not because all sorts of sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman was also a part of the same law. Any homosexual acts make the OT list of sinful acts to be punished as such. So we should not wonder that same sex unions did not make your distorted list of marriages.
Nothing about your list demonstrates what was right, commanded or ordained with God - He spoke that plainly in Gen 2. Polygamy was not even a common practice with the Israelites - something only the elite could afford and allowed not because God ordained it but because of the sinfulness of men (we want a king - king should have status - wives equaled status..etc). Concubines and substitute "wives" are examples of the weakness of some men. How can we accept Biblical examples of the weaknesses of men and sinning justifies the corruption of marriage as God ordained it then infer from those examples that we should therefore condone all such corruption today?
Also, being forced to marry your rapists is surely less acceptable than two consenting adults getting married. But maybe I have strange standards: I guess I do when compared to some of the Old Covenant laws, but I'm comfortable with that. If you're not, then make sure your tzitzit are firmly attached.
Again some context matters. If we consider verbal tradition, we are talking what, about 6k years ago or so. The societal norms of morality compared to today was different. We cannot take evidence from that era of the widespread brutality and measures to curb their sinfulness (the Law), in order to compare that to how one should supposedly be "comfortable" with sinful behavior today. I would hope everyone's standards today, especially Christians, are higher than the norm of that ancient world. Am unclear how those low standards of the past mean we should be "comfortable" with sin today.
Rape? We are talking about an earth full of people where "an eye for an eye" was a revolutionary morale concept. Until then it would be something like "slaughter your entire village including animals for looking at my cow wrong" if someone felt like it. Women were treated as property. A girl raped would have been shunned by family or killed. She would have been blamed (wrongfully) for inciting the lust of the rapist. She certainly would not be marriage material, so a death sentence either way. So "the law" in that regard represents progress being made in the hearts of men.
It took God a long time to change their hearts to the point where His saying "Love one another" clearly made such "laws" archaic relics of the Biblical recorded history of man's sinful past. He did not say "love one another" means we can do whatever we want sexually. Nor did He ever say "I was only making male/female a suggestion when I made you that way."
