The expressions used in Romans are explaining acts of both a homosexual and heterosexual nature used in idolatry, as was common in the society that Christians in Rome and the Roman/Greek world were living in.
The Bible never addresses "homosexuality" because it wasn't a concept back when it was written. The idea of sexuality being an identity did not exist in the times or culture.
The Biblical passages being discussed Romans are referring to specific acts of idolatry encouraged in Roman or Greek temples which make them spiritual idolatry as well as the fleshy sin of fornication or adultery, not "homosexuality".
Jesus Christ had nothing to say about the subject of homosexuality. If avoiding it were vital to faith, wouldn't he have emphasized it in some notable fashion? Are we saying Christ forgot to mention something of vital importance to Christianity?
Paul discusses specific homosexual acts (not homosexuality as a topic) twice. The words he uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 that are often translated as "homosexuals" or "men who lie with men" are in the original Greek "oute malakoi oute adenokourtesai" .
The phrase idiomatically means "the loose man and the man who uses him". Most reputable biblical scholars acknowledge that the exact meaning of both words is somewhat lost in idiom as they're both very euphemistic terms for submissive and aggressive forms of male prostitution common in Greece at the time and the men who availed themselves of these services, and done in the name of various gods of sex, fertility and erotic love.
(Paul was apparently using the "nice words" for these acts, there are much cruder ones. But, because they're so unspecific, scholars have had to work harder than to recreate the social and cultural context of the phrase.)
Interestingly, women did this idolatrous prostititution too, it wasn't reserved only for males. The female form of the practice is also mentioned by Paul in Romans 1: 18-29 Also, the acts performed by these prostitutes were both homosexual and heterosexual. The person who paid determined the act peformed. They were the "user" condemned there by Paul.
That's the two scriptures that are usually used to universally condemn homosexuality. Neither one is applicable to two loving individuals of the same gender in a committed and exclusive relationship. Neither one specifically and universally condemns same sex attraction or all same sex acts.
There's some significant evidence that the very early church even sanctified some same sex unions with a unique marriage ceremony, and the two individuals involved where born again with spirit and saints of the church.
Homosexuality became feared and out of social favor in certain times and clergymen adjusted the scriptures to enforce those fears, but tampering with the essential meaning of scripture is of course, not ever a good thing.
For a time, the Catholic church was more concerned with masturbation as a sin than homosexuality, and they chose to translate "malakoi" as "masturbators". Just another example of using the Bible (for a time) to get a specific legalistic view enforced. Why "masturbators" one may ask? Because the phrase "malakoi" is so unspecific. It's just a word in Greek that means literally, "soft". The verbal form "malakos" is used elsewhere in the Bible to refer to clothing and other items that are soft to the feel, tactilely speaking.
Many modern and more scholarly translations choose to render this phrase "the used and their users" which directs it away from a specific homosexual application, since it is is clear that Paul is also discussing heterosexual acts that would be idolatry to Christians. The WTS has already passed judgment on those translations and declared the NWT "more accurate" of course. They refuse this advanced interpretation and naturally prefer the more legalistic and condemning one.
Even if you reject the above interpretation, I think it would at least do everyone some good as a thinking person to wonder if there is any room for a different interpretation of the above scriptures and acknowledge that many people interpret these scriptures, with good scholarship behind it, differently than an out and out condemnation of homosexuality.
After all, the WTS and many other fundamental or orthodox groups been condemning homosexuality, something that is obviously a natural biological element of both animal and human creatures, for many years now and changing that would involve eating a lot of humble pie in a very public way. Are they more concerned with pleasing God and showing Christlike mercy or keeping their power structures and credibility intact?
If your hatred of certain groups is your main appeal and mainly how you designate yourself as a Christian, then I would say that you have missed the point about a great many things Christ taught, like mercy, forgiveness, and love. After all the book of James encourages us that if we err as Christians, err on the side of compassion, not judgment.
