I think Narkissos and Scully hit the nail on the head....they got to the heart of the matter and the real issue that you seem to be confronting, whether you let yourself be judged according to ancient mores and legalism. But since you asked, I did write a thread on Sodom and Gomorrah long ago (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/62942/1.ashx), which is a key proof text in much contemporary writing. In short, the putative "sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah story is not stated clearly in Genesis and evolved in Jewish tradition, from inhospitality to strangers (as it is in the original story) to pride, gluttony, haughtiness, and only later were sexual sins emphasized. Jesus in the synoptic gospels clearly regards the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as inhospitality. Even where sexual sins were mentioned in the NT, such as in Jude, and in other Jewish works (like Jubilees), the perversion in question seems to be human-angel mingling -- the same sin of the women who married angels before the Flood. I think you have to get to a late work like 2 Enoch for a clear same-sex interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
On other related matters:
It is anachronistic to equate biblical concepts with a modern cultural construct like "homosexuality". What is today considered "gay" does not neatly correspond to cultural categories of the ANE. Even today in the Middle East, different kinds of sexual contact between men are evaluated differently. And of course, the biblical prohibitions are only on matters of sexual conduct and do not address the matter of love and companionship. The story of David and Jonathan has been a focal point of exegesis on this subject. Also, the statements in Paul have a clear ethnic/political dimension....Paul is talking about Greco-Roman categories and practices that are alien to Jewish tradition; this is most overt in Romans 1 which is a detailed critique of Gentile society, i.e. the Gentiles focus so much on same-sex relations because God made them that way, and God made them that way because the Gentiles do not recognize God. Finally, Jesus' positive statements about eunuchs in Matthew deserve attention, inasmuch as he cites eunuchs of various kinds (those born that way, those made that way by others, those who make themselves eunuchs) as a positive example worthy of emulation, i.e. in terms of celibacy or not participating in procreation (which was a traditional goal in Jewish life). In contrast, Josephus (who describes eunuchs as having an inner femininity that they transfuse to their body) basically viewed them as the scum of the earth worthy of being cut off, i.e. along the lines of Leviticus. So the attitude of Jesus at least in Matthew is more "liberal" than that of Josephus.