You have to be careful here though. The quoted passage comes from Leviticus, and many of the laws of Torah, especially laws about cleanliness, really were gender specific. We today typically think of male and female homosexuals as being in the same moral category because we have the concept of "homosexual" as referring to someone with a sexual orientation towards someone of their own gender. But, as Aaron W. has argued in other threads, it is anachronistic to read the Bible as talking about homosexuals in this way--in many ancient cultures sexual orientation was much more fluid and ill or differently defined than it is in ours. So, in that sense, it really does seem to me just a mistake to read the putative condemnations of male homosexuality in the Bible as applying equally to female homosexuality.

Actually, this is exactly the way in which the scriptures are often interpreted. For instance, during medieval times, the laws against usury were thought to not apply to Jews because they were not "brethren," but outsiders to the Christian community.

This sort of thinking is clearly the point of that whole Good Samaritan parable.

I don't see Jesus as being overly focused on questions of morality because moral behavior follows automatically from moral beings. He talked about how a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and vice versa. He was more focused on the state of the tree than on the fruit.

I believe it is more probable, given the male-centric language used in the OT, that the moral laws were meant to apply to man, both male and female, even if women were not specifically referred to. I don't see a reason to think that women were exempt, especially in context with the other scriptures.

You don't agree with that in general, or are you speaking of specifics? I would say that the usury verse was likely a bad example, since women were not meant to engage in such transactions in the first place, but I don't see why the moral laws would not apply to all mankind.

We finally agree

There you go, at least you're right about one thing

Yes, but you'll never understand the Torah correctly if you think of it as primarily prescribing universal moral rules.

Haha, I'll take what I can get.

I absolutely agree with you here. This is also a corollary to one of the primary theses in N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God, which I'm almost finally done with.

#1. I'd hardly label those 3 translations from Greek -> KJV as "appealing"

#2. Strong's definitions aren't 400 years old, my Strong's is from 1995.

#3. No one uses the 1611 KJV any more, even though I do have one...