• Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah." - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

• Another Hebrew word zimah could have been used - if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. For example, in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry, "toevah" is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general a different word "zimah," appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29). - http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/Levsht.html

• Regarding the Leviticus reference to toevah being false translated and having nothing to do with homosexuality: A further evidence of this is toevah is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim" "the uncleanness of the Gentiles" (e.g., 2 (4) Kings 16:3).

The significance of toevah become clear when your realize the other Hebrew word "zimah" could have been used - if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. For example, in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry, "toevah" is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general a different word "zimah," appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29). Often but yes, not always, "toevah" specifically means "idol" (E.g., Isa. 44:19; Ezek 7:20, 16:36; Jer. 16:18; cf. Deut. 7:25-26).

Clearly, then, Leviticus does not say that a man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Rather, it is a ritual violation, an "uncleanness"; it is something "dirty" ritualistically. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live, as its opening remark make clear - "After the doings of the land of Egypt, .....etc and the prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods) (often mistranslated fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).

This conclusion finds further support in the Septuagint where the toevah is translated with the Greek word "bdelygma". Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity. Once again, other Greek words were available, like "anomia", meaning a violation of law or a wrong or a sin. That word could have been used to translate toevah. In fact, in some cases anomia was used to translate toevah- when the offense in question was not just a ritual impurity but also a real wrong of an injustice, like offering child sacrifice or having sex with another man's wife, in violation of his property rights. The Greek translators could have used anomia; they used bdelygma.

Evidently, the Jews of that pre-Christian era simply did not understand Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it is wrong in itself. They understood Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it offended ancient Jewish sensitivities: it was dirty and Canaanite-like, it was unjewish. And that is exactly how they translated the Hebrew text into Greek before Christ. It makes no statement about the morality of homosexual acts as such. In today's society similar unclean acts might include picking ones nose, burping or passing gas. - http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

• The import of the word abomination is not as serious as present-day clergy would have us believe. The Hebrew word "toevah" is less condemnable than another word "zimah" which the author of the Holiness Code could have used if he regarded same-sex behavior as a grave sin, as he did in Lev. 19:29 which condemns adultery, or prostitution in general. "Zimah" applies to something intrinsically wrong, evil and was translated by KJV translators as "wickedness" and by Moffatt (q.v.) as "foul vice."

Yet the Holiness Code author used the less condemnable term "toevah," signifying same-sex activity as ritually unclean, such as eating pork or other meat of clovenfooted animals (Lev. 11:7), crustacean seafood that have no fins or scales (11:10-12), certain fowls (11:13-19), and certain fowls that creep on all four (11:20-23). All are considered abominations, i.e. ritually unclean, but nothing more. - http://biblelore.com/Biblelore%202.htm

That was just a simple Google search, but - I mean - I could go on....

EDIT: Fucking markdown.