I again present the analogy of the weird kid in the playground who teaches his classmates how to play foursquare.
First, he tells them a few safety measures--no shoving, no kicking the ball really hard, no hitting others in the face with the ball. A few of them grumble, but mostly they accept it, because safety is important.
Then he tells them the rules of the game--how to play it. At first they listen, but after a while they start getting bored of all the seemingly pointless rules, and choose to just play it how they want to play it--they choose to have fun.
Now, I know that having fun sometimes causes someone to lose an eye, but so long as the safety rules are in place, there should be no problem.
To put it in other words, God first gave us some laws as to how to be good and not harm others--the safety rules in my analogy. Then he started giving us weird laws that made no sense--it didn't harm anyone to disobey them, and disobeying them made life better for his followers in some cases.
Homosexuality is one such weird law. So long as we follow his commandments about not harming others--no slavery, rape, adultery, prostitution (Especially non-consensual), et cetera--then homosexuality should have no negative side effect.
I'll admit that, like eating pork and whatnot, there was an excuse back in the olden days for eschewing homosexuality--namely, it negatively impacted the population growth, and was something done by really strange pagans to boot. However, neither of those apply today at a meaningful scale.
I fail to see how not being allowed to practice one's sexuality maximizes the best in one's life. To the contrary, I think life is worse for all parties involved if everybody isn't allowed to love, marry, have children, and all other things we're actually required to do by the bible--at least, in the Torah/OT; I have no idea which of those were rejected by the NT. In short, the rules of the game may have good meaning in Thou-Knowest-Whom's eyes, but that doesn't mean we can't ask why. Given the fact that Little-Yud was cryptic about what he meant by sexual immorality, I find that the Christians can take a page out of the Jew's book and try to interpret it instead of trying (And failing) to correctly interpret an obscure, translated from greek, potentially edited portion of a book that wasn't neccesarily written directly after Jesus's death. (Note: That last bit is because I'm not sure if the gospel that talks about Sexual immorality being wrong was the one that has been proven to have been written shortly after Little-Yud's death. I concede that one of them was, but all of them is a bit of a stretch.)
Given the fact that Little-Yud was cryptic about what he meant by sexual immorality
Jesus was not cryptic. He was refering to the OT passages relating to it. Otherwise, he would not have spoken as he did. He was speaking to a anchient Jewish audiance, explaining to them just what he meant. So naturally, he is speaking about the OT understanding of sexual imoraltiy.
You don't have me convinced.
He just said sexual immorality. For all we know, he went into explicit detail, but it wasn't recorded. You can't just assume things.
If those are your reasons for opposing homosexuality, then you don't have much of an argument, especially in today's age. "It negatively impacted the population growth," is not a bad thing, and I would even go so far as to argue that today it would be a good thing is population growth were stunted or even reversed. You yourself even say that neither of your reasons apply today at a meaningful scale, so I ask you, what are your reasons. Tell me, and I am perfectly happy to strike them down as incorrect or irrelevant.
You can't go by what the bible put as a punishment as a good, reasonable model for what to do today. On ships in colonial times it was very common to receive lashes for something as trivial as not getting up immediately when your captain told you to. The bible, or rather that part of it, was written at a time when fathers had the authority to marry off their daughters, and sexism and rascism were the way of life, not the (mostly) distant memories that they are today.