I think within the Halachic world there has been a remarkable redefinition of many of the more traditional attitudes concerning the congenital homosexual. Traditionally, most biblical translations render tôʿēbâ as “abomination.”
According to Etymology Online, the noun “abomination” is a 14th term term that means: “feeling of disgust, hatred, loathing,” from O.Fr. abomination,which in turn derives from the Latin word abominationem (nom. abominatio) “abomination,” from abominatus, pp. of abominari “shun as an ill omen,” from ab– “off, away from” + omin-, stem of omen. Its meaning was intensified by the folk etymology derivation from L. ab homine “away from man,” hence rendering it as, “beastly.”
Thus, abomination is synonymous with hatred, corruption, and depravity. The Latin root corresponds to the Hebrew term tôʿēbâ derives from the Hebrew verb tʿb “to hate” or “abhor,” but the original biblical text of Lev. 18:22 does not explain why homosexuality is so abhorrent.
Aside from its obvious association with homosexuality, tôʿēbâ also has a distinctly religious and idolatrous connotation as in Isa. 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in 2 Kgs. 23:13 where Milcom is called “the abomination of the Ammonites.” Until recently, it was supposed that homosexual behavior was associated with cultic prostitution. 
The distinguished British biblical scholar Gordon Wenham explains:
“Since male prostitutes were sometimes castrated and often took part in ceremonies flaunting their effeminacy, it may well be that aversion to homosexuality partially explains the ban on castrated men participating in the public assembly, or on wearing women’s clothes. The latter is described as ‘an abomination to the LORD’ (Deut. 23:1; 22:5). It could well be that the law is banning anything suggestive of homosexual practice . . .” 
However, most modern biblical scholars doubt whether there cultic male prostitutes existed in ancient Israel. Despite the reticence of the modern scholars, given the carnivalesque quality of the ancient fertility rites, homosexual prostitutes most likely played a role alongside with the female prostitutes of antiquity. It seems doubtful their male counterparts would have been excluded.
If the Mesopotamian legal codes are of any relevance to the passage in Lev. 18:22, we may be able to decipher the Torah’s real meaning that the ban against homosexuality may well be referring to (a) father and son incest (as mentioned in the Hittite codes) (b) homosexual rape (as spelled out in the Middle Assyrian Codes), (c) male pedophilia, (d) castrating a male for sexual exploitation.
Bear in mind that ancient Israel was the only civilization to have formulated such a proscription against homosexuality. Indeed, the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 54b interprets the word “zachor” to also include male child. The word “zachor” in the Bible frequently means “male child.” 
If this is indeed the real meaning of the text (and let me remind you that we have no way of knowing for sure), then it is possible that the prohibition was not directed at monogamous male relations, which was not the concern of the biblical writer, but was aimed at male incest, pedophilia, and homosexual rape, i.e., anyone who sexually preys upon males of any age. In times of war, it was not unusual to rape male captives.  The sexual humiliation of a male living in a testosterone-driven society probably filled the biblical writers with complete revulsion. The story of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-11) supports this exposition as well. The ancients may have feared that the moral fabric of society might unravel should males prey upon other males.
According to one rabbinic legend, Ham was guilty because he sodomized his own father while King Nebuchadnazar of Babylon was believed to have sodomized captive kings. Using other biblical texts as a type of intrabiblical commentary provides the rational behind the biblical prohibition of homosexuality and why it is called, “an abomination.”
Lastly, the one likely exposition we have not considered is the possibility that the Torah forbids homosexuality because it goes against the biblical imperative for human beings should ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and does not fit in the scheme of Creation as defined in Genesis 1 and 2. As Wenham notes, “God did not create a male partner for Adam, but only a female counterpart, with whom they could together become ‘one flesh.’ This would also explain why Paul in the Christian tradition regarded homosexuality as being, ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1:26), and this would explain why the Bible refers to it as an “abomination.”
While there is considerable merit to Wenham’s statement, I believe the biblical designation of tôʿēbâ as “abomination” is because the idea of sexually exploiting males–of any age– horrified the ancient Israelite psyche, just as it still does even today. In short, the biblical writers did not concern themselves with the reality of a loving and monogamous homosexual relationship.
Notes: Cf. Deut. 23:18; 1Kgs. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46.  Gordon Wenham, “The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality,” Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363.  Cf. Exod. 12:48, Lev. 12:2, 15:33, 27:3 7;4 Isa. 66:7.  Cf. Sanhedrin 54b. Share