Critics have been known to argue that rather than being rules against homosexuality, passages like those in Leviticus 18 are not against gay sex per se, but against 'sex with boys' and that it was also prohibited because the male 'seed' was so valuable... The laws of the OT can be broken down into three categories: First, universal moral laws. Second, cultural universals (laws geared to Israel's culture that have a universal moral law behind them). Finally, ceremonial laws.

Are the Leviticus passages in the first category or the second? They are in the first category for the following reasons:
1. Note first the CONTEXT... Both are set in the middle of other laws regarding sexual behavior: Don't lay with your mom, your aunt, etc. The context of the commands is that of Category 1 laws: Universal absolutes. The punishments range from 'worst to best', from death to expulsion to barrenness. The context, the structure of the commands, and the punishment together suggest that what we have here is a universal condemnation of all such behavior.
2. The inclusion of Molech here is an incidental; the homosexual element is shown as (yet another) reason why worship of Molech is wrong.
3. The Jews NEVER interpreted these verses in any way other than against plain old homosexual behavior. They never saw any kind of 'culture factor' behind this prohibition.
4. There are very SPECIFIC condemnations of temple prostitution elsewhere (Deut. 23:17-8). This would suggest that the Lev. cites are not 'roundabouts' or allusions to that practice.

Problem:

According to Jewish belief, barrenness was a curse (

Gen. 16:1

;

1 Sam. 1:3–7

). Children were considered a blessing from the Lord (

Ps. 127:3

). The blessing of God in the land was dependent on having children (

Gen. 15:5

). In view of the stress laid on having children, some have argued that it is not surprising that the OT Law would frown on homosexual activity from which no children come. Thus, they conclude that the Bible is not condemning homosexual activity as such, but only the refusal to have children.

Solution:

There is no indication in Scripture that homosexuality was considered sinful because no children resulted from it. First of all, at no place in the Bible is any such connection stated.

Second, if homosexuals were punished because they were barren, then why were they put to death? The dead can’t have any more children! Since it is against the desires of homosexuals, heterosexual marriage would have been a more appropriate punishment!

Third, the prohibition against homosexuality was not only for Jews, but for Gentiles (

Lev. 18:24

). But Gentile blessings were not dependent on having heirs to inherit the land of Israel.

Finally, if barrenness was a divine curse, then singleness would be sinful. But both our Lord (

Matt. 19:11–12

) and the Apostle Paul (

1 Cor. 7:8

) sanctioned singlehood by both precept and practice.