Could the argument be made that in the New Testament, it's not necessarily homosexual activity that is condemned, but rather it's the act of emasculating a man.

Could the argument be made that in the New Testament, it's not necessarily homosexual activity that is condemned, but rather it's the act of emasculating a man. The criticism against the Romans was that they were laying with men as they would woman, which at the time would mean to rob a man of something absolutely sacrosanct. 2000 years of history, and a lot of progress on the front of women's equality (probably not enough still), and it seems less of an issue for two consenting adults to engage in homosexual activity, whereas in Roman society, could a slave, or a man of lesser status truly consent to a homosexual relationship? It always read to me that it was more about turning men into women than it was about actually performing homosexual acts.