Dastardly said:
1. Leviticus is not the only place that sets Biblical precedence for the immorality of homosexuality. Romans 1, for instance,(New Testament, notably) presents it as a symptom of man's fall from obedience to God.
No, what it actually says is that God "gave them over" to shameful lusts as the "due penalty" for their sin, which was actually forsaking the worship of God. Whatever that means, I'm certainly not sure.
I can have a guess though, that since the book is written for a Roman audience it might assume a Roman understanding of the significance of same sex activity. Romans did not see men having sex with men as a "loving" practice, or as anything equivalent to men having sex with women. It was purely about dominance and submission and had strong connotations with slavery.
However, I do know that the specific equation of same sex intercourse to Sodom and Gommorah as a sign of how far the Sodomites had fallen dates to about 400-500 years after this passage was written.
Dastardly said:
There are also references in both Timothy letters, and in Corinthians.
This is actually not true. Both of those are based on the use of the term arsenokoi, in fact those books represent the first appearance of this term in literature. It has been retrospectively assumed to mean "homosexuality". However, that's a little unfair, as the stem is used in subsequent Greek literature to refer to non-homosexual acts as well.
The fact is that there is huge debate over what that word means, but there are no examples of its use which suggest it is somehow an ancient term for homosexuality, certainly not in the sense we understand homosexuality.
Dastardly said:
(Also notice that blindness (and the other stuff) wasn't called an abomination, but homosexuality was. Clearly the OT has an obvious opinion on homosexuality.)
It certainly wasn't, because there was no term for "homosexuality" at the time.
This is something many modern people seem to have a problem understanding. Homosexuality, in the sense of believing there are people who are inherently attracted to members of the same sex as a substitute for the opposite sex, does not exist in history. The idea has a specific birthdate, Karl Ulrich's 1867 work on "urnings". The term itself entered common usage in 1870. Before that, pretty much nothing.
The idea of the "homosexual" was created at the same time as the "paedophile", the "masochist" and the "nymphomaniac" as a medical term to describe a medical or psychological aberration. It is not a religious term, it never was and it never will be, and the idea that people thousands of years ago somehow came to exactly the same logical and linguistic structures that we did and to the point that these structures are self-evident and obvious to us is just not historical.
I personally believe that it's highly likely that Jewish people in antiquity and at the time of Jesus did condemn same sex intimacy. There is no hard evidence, but it seems the most likely option. I don't see why any modern Christian should particularly care, but I totally disagree that it's as clear cut as even you are saying here.