A likewise thing I occasionally see is bickering about what Bible quote so-and-so really means by using a complicated dispute (arsenokoitai in Leviticus etc) and saying "this doesn't mean so-and-so", which is clearly waggling toward "so this doesn't mean the negative at all" even when it does
I used to watch Dan McClellan and he'd often respond to videos about *that* verse with "a) no it doesn't mean all homosexuals b) the ancients didn't think about homosexuality, they thought top and bottom, Paul condemns the bottoms here" and even though *he* seemed responsible I saw the game played
Yeah, I like the way that he does it because he's very clear that the ancient people writing these texts would probably have been homophobic if they were introduced to the idea, they just didn't have the concept
And that the text is just not engaging with the concept as we have it today at all
One of the things though that complicates it is that there were definitely Romans who were not homophobic by modern definitions who didn't like bottoms
Though according to some stuff I've seen recently, people probably overstate this to some degree, and a lot of Romans didn't care about this that much either way
Like the Romans were just extremely sexist and perceived certain bottoms as being feminine which is bad
Very interesting history here. I'll admit to some anger biasing me about this and making me more sharp than I would be about any other religion