elaienar said: Isn't it just that the centurion's relationship with his slave, sinful or not, wasn't something that needed to be brought up when he was a) asking for help and b) displaying praiseworthy behaviour in doing so? Jesus told at least one person "go and sin no more" and definitely opposed the Pharisees' sin of defiling the temple, among other things. Are you making a distinction between "caring about sin" and opposing harmful behaviour?
I think the term “sin” ends up being used to cover a number of concepts which are not always interchangeable. Jesus appeared to care much more about some kinds of behavior than others, and those did not always align much or at all with how other people understood the rules. For instance, there’s the thing with picking up food on the Sabbath, where Jesus responds with what is basically ridicule when people suggest that the obligation not to work on the Sabbath trumps eating or rescuing an animal or other tasks which serve some appropriate goal.
The observation I’d make is that at least sometimes things were brought up when they seemed relevant, and many modern Christians seem to think that a same-sex relationship is such an important thing that it would have to be brought up in any context because it’s so big a deal. And I think that’s clearly not the case.
In general, it seems to me, Jesus was more concerned with sins which hurt people, or deprived them of help, than with the rules that seemed to be about purity or holiness of some sort. In general, if you can’t point at who’s being harmed by something without the assumption that it is sinful and thus endangers them just by being sinful, it seems not to be on the radar at all most of the time. This aligns with one of the major conceptual shifts that occurred in the framework. In the previous set of rules, the general understanding was that unclean things made other things unclean. In the new set of rules, it works the other way; clean things make unclean things clean.
If I had to guess at an explanation, and wasn’t allowed to use “we’re no longer a tiny tribe with a large neighboring tribe that has ritual prostitution practices and have to avoid any hint of emulating or participating in their practices to maintain our identity”, my next guess would be that it’s no longer the case that a ritually-unclean kind of sex can defile a relationship, and now it’s the other way around; love can make whatever form it takes acceptable.
YMMV. I am inclined to figure that, whatever the rest of the theology may be, gay sex is clearly a thing. And since it is a thing that is in this world, it falls under the general terms of Romans 8:38-39:
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
So the entire question strikes me as moderately academic. Gay sex is somewhere in “things present” or “things to come”. Even if it were to be stipulated that it is in some way a bad thing, that badness has been overcome, and the question is a topic of idle curiousity with little theological significance.