...I wish someone here other than myself would start taking an interest in the ambiguity of the equivalent, in the Aramaic language, of the equivalent of the Greek word eunuchoi, which MAY indicate that Jesus Christ acknowledged the existence of same-sex attraction, and wasn't the least bit exercised by it.
In addition to that, there's the fact that the Roman centurion who was rewarded with the accolade, "Never have I seen greater faith among the Jews," when Christ acceded to his request to cure his "body-slave," was actually requesting that his minion or catamite or something like that be cured, because such slave boys were required by Roman LAW and custom to be at the disposition of their masters for sexual satisfactions. And even if THIS Roman warrior was not "living in sin" with his catamite, all the people standing around Christ and him would have ASSUMED that to be the case--the custom and practice being that widespread among the slaveowners of the Graeco-Roman world. Apart from these two possible incidences of actual contact with homosexuality, however, the notion that Jesus would never have been confronted by homosexual behaviour in a country occupied by Romans is preposterous. Homosexuality among Romans and their Greek servants and secretaries would have stared Him in the face, and, if he'd wanted to denounce it, the occasions would have been ample.