If it was just about same sex intercourse, they would have included a line about women lying with women. This was very likely more about not denigrating another man by forcing them into the role of a woman. Also, given this spent generations as oral tradition before being written down and translated several times, trying to say your particular personal interpretation is the only possible correct one is asinine at best.

The Bible has been translated and re-translated across basically every language on the planet, as well as appropriated for propaganda purposes over and over as well. To think that you can take a line at face value - especially in English - is naive. There have been at least 50 different cultures and societal revolutions between you and when that line was first written.

For example, the King James version of the Bible is a propaganda piece commissioned by a monarch at a time when kings were quite literally losing their heads with the express purpose of including as many references to kings and monarchies as possible in order to foster positive sentiments in the peasants toward the "divine right of kings" or whatever.

In early versions of the Bible, Lucifer was imprisoned in Tartarus alongside the Titans that Zeus put in there. I'm pretty sure Hell was added later during a medieval reformation or something. The Bible was definitely altered several times during the Medieval period. The line in question here I think had at least 3 variants during this time period. The one claimed to be about same-sex intercourse, a version potentially about not engaging in CSAM, and one that might be about not fucking somebody in another person's bed.

King David, one of God's anointed, had something like 32 wives and a friend who "loved him in a way that no woman ever could."

One of the people that Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin text, the word used is for a specific type of slave. A male slave commonly kept as a lover.

And we could have a field day on Biblically accurate angels, "Be not afraid," and the Renaissance era redefining what an angel is.

And then there's also the fact that the Bible was written by multiple different people across several hundred years, at least. The later parts of the New Testament were written by people who lived 300 years after the death of Christ and claimed to know him and what he wanted better than his apostles did. Some of whom who said that the Old Testament and original sin still counted despite the nullification of the Old Testament and the cleansing of original sin being one of the reasons that Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for.

A) They can't acknowledge the Bible was wrong about anything. The whole point of their religion is that the Bible is God's words written down by man. Even when you know about the conclave that decided which of the hundreds of "biblical" stories were apocryphal and which were true, hundreds of years after the events of those stories supposedly happened, they will still say that God was guiding that conclave. Bringing up a bad translation also doesn't help, since King James was guided by God to create his translation. The Bible CANNOT be wrong (according to Christians), since it is the word of God.

B) Historical context is important if you want to try interpreting God's words instead of taking them literally. Romans had a very different lifestyle and view of sex and the role of men and women. It could be that God's word was that the TYPE of male relationships the Romans had was not what God wanted, but just two dudes banging was fine.