Also, Paul speaks against sexual immorality and homosexuality. Was Paul referring back to the law against homosexuality... or was he speaking
from his own bias?
Now there's a good question. We can narrow it down to Romans
1 if you like.
It's pretty clear that Paul was speaking against what he saw as the norm in this non-Abrahamic urban society. "The Law" is, after all, the national
epic of a particular ethnic group, and Paul was of that group. So, it is unsurprising that an individual would profess views similar with the nation
with which he identifies, and look askance on other nations' different views and behavior.
Paul does not use a formula which he uses elsewhere, distinguishing between what he thinks personally and what he received as an apostle of Jesus,
God. That's not surprising in a letter, though, if he expects that his view is shared with the people he's addressing, regardless of why he holds
the view, even if he holds it for a different reason than the people he's addressing.
I've always been blessed by having gay friends, men and women. I haven't noticed anything in them, or in how they live their lives, that could
reasonably be expected to affect adversely their attitude toward God or toward their fellow humans. God has often been used as a pretext for their
fellows to hector them, but that says nothing about them. In answer to your less interesting question, in my view,
is it possible for a man to follow the 2 commandments, love God and your neighbors and be a homosexual?
Why of course. It's like asking wherther a man or woman who liked to eat scallops could still love God and their neighbors. Some other people have
historically seen that as a religious issue, and can even cite scripture against it. OK, but if the question is whether the scallop-gourmet can also
love God and neighbor, the answer is obviously so.
In any case, the Jerusalem Council, not Paul, set the standards for church membership by Gentiles. The only black-letter sexual requirement
not to marry kinfolk. Paul actually is wishy-washy about another black-letter conciliar requirement, how strictly one must observe the ban on eating
sacrificed meat (although it is impossible to determine for sure whether he is presenting a position that he will argue at a council still to come, or
interpreting conciliar legislation already passed).
So, as with all law, there is what is written and what is applied. And, unless there is amendment, we can never know how it applies to new situations.
That is, we simply will never know what Paul, or any other ancient, thought about homosexuality within marriage, because that idea wasn't invented
yet. It is therefore a human assumption, not a divine one, that same sex marriage isn't a proper response to Paul's concerns, and a cultural
assumption whether that's same sex marriage among four people, two people, or whatever other number might be locally normative.