There are only six confirmed cases of HIV being transmitted orally, and in all cases the receptive partner had open sores in their mouths, so you information is incorrect. As to why straights seem to view anal intercourse as universal among gay men have you ever seen "The Joy of Gay Sex"? It has detailed instructions in how to have anal intercourse in order to minimize rectal damage. The gay community is far more responsible for the misconceptions about gay life than "homophobic" heterosexuals.
Did you bother to read the link I posted about arsenokoites?
David is referred to as the son of Jesse 20 times in Scripture so your analysis of Saul using this referrence for David does not indicate anything out of the ordinary. Saul is angry with Jonathon for choosing to be loyal to David and not to him. Your gay apologists are reading more into this account than is actually there.
Arsenokoites is found in many TLG manuscripts, so it is not that rare a term. What you are ignoring is the Septuagint and how Jewish rabbi's translated the Hebrew into Greek, which is undoubtedly why Paul choose this particlur word.
Again you have not posted any guidlines for same sex relationships found in Scripture. If God validated such relationships He would have been just as precise in giving us instructions for them as He was in heterosexual relationships, dietary rules, order of worships, types of sacrifices, and etc.
As to your cemetary markers, since the only evidence you have is names without any biographies for those who were buried you are assuming a relationship you cannot prove. I do not think it would be suprising to find lovers buried together in a Greek cemetary in view of how Greeks viewed this type of relationship. How many grave markers of non-believers have you seen with Biblically oriented inscriptions? They are more common than not since it is the family of those buried who order the inscriptions. Gnosticism was prevalent in the early centuries of Christianity so what you have posted does not prove anything.
"For, do I not know that you are an intimate companion to the son of Jesse?"
What is missing from this "correct translation" is the word "sexual". Intimacy, true intimacy surpasses the sexual. You deny that homosexuality is based on sex and then choose to add to what Scripture plainly states by interpreting an intimate friendship as an intimate sexual relationship.
It is fascinating that after almost 2000 years of Christian teaching that "experts" have now decided that the prohibitions against same gender sexual relationships are not what has been taught since the time of Paul. St. Augustine of Hippo was very adamant and clear that homosexual relationships are abominable.
Jesus prayed in John 17:17 "Sanctify them in truth, your word is truth." What you are attempting to do is argue about words so you can justify the unjustifiable.
Revelation 21:7-8
7 "He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." NAS
This list does not leave much to the imagination as to who will have their part in the "lake that burns with fire and brimstone". I suppose you can water down the word "immoral" so you can kid yourself about God ordaining gay relationships.
2 Peter 2:1-3
2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. NAS
BTW, the King James 1611 Bible is not the only one in current use. All your arguments are based on this one translation, which I agree is difficult for some to understand due to changes in word usage.
Your insistance that it is homophobic Christians who are behind oposition to gay unions is not totally correct. Have you read the thread "Homosexauls Opposed to Pride Extremism"? If not you might like to read the last paragraph of the opening post. A Canadian gay activist understands why gay unions should not be legalized and religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.