This is semantics. I’ve hardly been unfair here. People in the ancient world thought of men as the complete/perfect form of human being, of which women were thought of as the incomplete/imperfect form. In other words, the perceived differences in external characteristics were explained teleologically, as differences in attained development. There was no notion that there was something more fundamental at work, like chromosomes. You can call it whatever you want, for our purposes it doesn’t really matter. The point is that without genetics and embryology, we really don’t have a proper notion of opposite sexes. Female embryos go on to become women not because their development into men was stalled, but because their DNA dictates an altogether different development. They aren’t defective versions of men. The issue then in biblical prohibitions of relations between men is not that ‘opposite-sex’ relations were ok and ‘same-sex’ relations were not: those categories didn’t exist until modern times. The issue was rather that men were held to be superior, and that such activity violated the supposed “natural” order of gender roles, i.e., were tantamount to men exchanging roles with women (cf. Romans 1). We now know that this is not the way nature works (female fetal development happens as a result of distinct genetics, not insufficient formation), that there was no natural basis for those gender roles in the first place, and that those prohibitions, while undoubtedly there in the text, lack any objective meaning in terms of modern biology. Society has moved on. To say that such marriages aren’t real marriages is bigoted, and to claim such because the Bible supposedly prohibits same-sex activity is anachronistic and inaccurate. The Bible did indeed prohibit such activity between men, but the reason the biblical authors did so was because they thought such activity violated social norms of gender hierarchy that modern society has since discarded. Such prohibitions serve no real purpose in our modern context, in that there’s no point in safeguarding a social hierarchy that no longer exists. The points I’ve been making here aren’t complicated or obscure. Everyone knows the ancients didn’t know about modern biology. The discussion could have and should have moved on long before now.