I'm not too sure if I feel comfortable allowing religion to cross paths with a discussion on homosexuality. Do try to argue rationally instead of just referring to a book; I shudder to think of the day I get bored enough to start a religion topic here in SC D&D...
Anyway, I'd like to mention once again that the book is as fallible as the words of man. After all, it was written so and comprehensible by the very same, not to mention it was translated many times over; plenty of things could have gotten lost in translation. If you disagree... yeah, I don't know what to say, except that we'll talk about religion some other time; religion never provides conclusive arguments (unless, we're talking about religion itself)
Back to homosexuals, however:
FD_ - and what if an individual found another to be emotionally attractive without being physically attracted to them? Actually you know what? Scratch that, define "emotionally attractive", I'm keen to hear what you're referring to.