Our indigenous argument popular with a number of us, and only published in scandalous locations like this one, is that many levitical and deuteronomical laws can be reduced to a concept of monotypic ideality, as follows:

"The Canaanites as sensualists feel compelled to take on every indulgence, and their style of greedily grasping at everything goes along with their polytheism, their wish to have gods here, there and everywhere.

You as monotheists should not only be satisfied with one God but also, similarly, with the ideal of everything you deal with: one type of crop per field, one type of thread per cloth, one ideal type of sex partner per person, one ideal type of relationship with each family member, one type of permitted food among the mammals (ungulates: "Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud"), one type of permitted food among the aquatic creatures (fish: "whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters"), one type of permitted food among the creeping things (Orthoptera: grasshoppers etc. " which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth"), effectively one type of bird (doves - ducks are not mentioned in the bible, chickens have not yet been introduced from East Asia in old testament times, swans are explicitly treyf - notice the sellers that Jesus drives from the temple are selling only oxen, sheep and doves), and so on."

The question about Leviticus is whether it mandates heterosexuality for all men as the monotypically ideal form of sexuality, or whether, instead, it mandates heterosexual sex for all heterosexual men as the ideal use of their sexuality.

Clearly, it cannot mandate heterosexuality per se, since that is an ingrained character rather than a chooseable action. Therefore it means just what it says, mandating heterosexual sex for heterosexuals.

Monotypic ideality for the unmentioned minority who are homosexual clearly lies in homosexuality. They cannot choose to be heterosexual, since it is not chooseable, and there is nothing to imply that they should therefore be celibate. It is completely implausible that trying to force a sexual reaction that is psychologically repulsive could be upheld as an ideal. That would be like commanding people to eat carrion or drink pus. Homosexuals are not asked to be heterosexual.

Sexuality outside your predominant sexual orientation (except by explicit and loving mutual marital agreement for worthy purposes - pace Cat) is usage, as is sexuality with those not mutually comprehending, such as animals and young children. So is use of prostitutes and sacred-prostitutes. Monotypic ideality excludes sex for purposes of usage, since that is non-ideal or even anti-ideal.

Why don't you see this message everywhere?

God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things that are strong.