“We find additional references to “Sodomites” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, and II Kings 23:7 which pretty clearly refer to homosexuality.”
The traditional definition of sodomy includes any “unnatural” sex act, including homosexuality and oral sex. Nowadays, we have changed the definition to only include homosexuals.
Since these passages are Old Testament texts, the key issue is the meaning of the underlying Hebrew word.
It should carry weight that there was not a shred of doubt in either the Jewish or Christian traditions, at least not until modern “revisionism,” that male homosexual acts were condemned by Scripture. I'm aware of the debate within Judaism about the status of women who in their past had committed female homosexual acts, but within the Christian tradition, Romans 1 of the New Testament clearly closes that door as well.
If I'm going to get into the exegesis of biblical texts at the level of the original languages and how individual words are to be interpreted, I need to cite unimpeachable sources rather than rely on what I post “off the cuff.” While I have studied Hebrew, Attic Greek, and Koine Greek, it's been a long time — decades, in fact — and those are not my areas of expertise. My Greek and Hebrew teachers were well aware those were not my best subjects.
However, I am confident saying that while we can debate whether the relevant texts are best translated as “male prostitutes,” “passive male partners in homosexuality,” or some other term, there is no way to make the underlying words look like anything other than references to abominable acts. I grant that some of the individual texts may condemn either broader things than homosexuality or more specific things than simple male homosexuality, and I grant that the issue of consensual sexual activity versus attempted rape of angels in Sodom is relevant, but even voluntary homosexual acts between committed partners are condemned when the totality of Scripture is considered.
Imagine a book written several thousand years ago which describes murder with a knife, murder with bare hands, and murder with a blunt object such as a rock to the head crushing the skull, condemns all of those acts, and also says more generally that killing people is bad. Would we conclude from the lack of specific reference to murder by overdosing the victim with sleeping pills that it is acceptable to murder via sleeping pills because it does not involve an act of physical violence?
It takes that sort of nonsensical interpretation to say that consensual homosexual acts in a committed relationship are okay because the Bible knew nothing of such relationships. Personally I'd argue that the biblical authors of the New Testament were quite aware of Greek homosexuality and the consensual relationships between older men and younger men or boys were precisely what the Apostle Paul had in mind when writing Romans 1, but even if that isn't true, it is crystal clear that both historic Christianity and Orthodox Judaism clearly condemn homosexuality based on the texts of Scripture.
There is no way around it. To get “gay affirming” views out of Scripture, it is necessary to radically reinterpret the text using principles of interpretation which no sane person would ever use for any secular document — except, perhaps, for the United States Constitution, where lawyers reinterpret the written text because just like some theologians do with the Bible, they want to make the text say things it does not say.