You did not read what I wrote very carefully. I said that when the context demands it, it does clearly connote sex. Not only that, but the specific word, when it does connote sex usually also connotes rape, coersion or some other moral irregularity.
The original Hebrew texts. All translated versions require some interpretation on the part of the translators.
Because modern English translations were translated for publishers who want to sell their books. The biggest bloc of purchasers are the evangelicals who would never touch a translation that did not agree on the more highly quoted prooftexts with the interpretation usually given to the traditional Tyndale, AV and DR translations. I'm not necessarily claiming fraud or cupidity on the part of the translators. It is a defendable translation, and they may believe it is the best, or even the only one. I disagree. It is more natural to see it like the rabbis did, since they were closer in language and culture. In Leviticus 18,the emphasis is on adultery, and possibly rape. In Leviticus 20, the emphasis is on idolatry.
One of the problems with modern exegesis is that they often look at each verse independently and forget the context. They miss that the command is bundled with other similar commands in the two Leviticus verses. Plato is no longer routinely taught, so a reference to his writings is misunderstood.
A coined word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (arsenokoitai) has never been clearly defined. Although it seems to have been derived from the LXX translation of Leviticus 20:13, even in one of it earliest uses outside the Bible, it could not have referred "homosexual acts" because the perpetrators are male and the victims are female. Ome early copies of King James' and Martin Luther's translations both appear to translate it as self-abuse.
