Aristophanes tale about the creation of desire, as written in Plato's Symposium can be summarized in this way: Initially, three kinds humans were created; man, descended from the sun, woman, descended from the earth and androgynous (man and woman in the same body), descended from the moon. The bodies of the three genders had a double set of arms, heads, legs, reproductive organs etc. During a rebellion against the gods, the gods discovered that humans had become to powerful for them, and as an attempt to stop the rebellion, they cut all humans in half. This caused a big longing in the lives of humans, a constant longing to find the other half which they were separated from. The split androgynous longed for the opposite sex while the men and women which had been split longed for the same sex. If one relate this to the kind of homosexual love Aristophanes is generally encouraging, it's not a mutual relationship between adult men, but between a man and a boy, a teacher and a student or wherever there was an imbalance of power in the relationship. This is called pederasty.
If this was what Paul had in mind when he thought of homosexuality, his thought would likely be a result of an idolatry myth. Is this the reason why Paul in his letter to the Romans (1:23) writes that people turned to idol worship just ahead of his writings about homosexual relationships? I don't know, but the whole reasoning is built upon a myth of idolatry, and within the context of imbalanced relationships and pederastic homosexuality.
In the same tale from Plato's symposium, we hear about the couple Pausanias and Agathon. This example is perhaps more relevant to the context the church is facing today, but it's important not to read our own time into the relationship between Pausanias and Agathon. During the classical Greek period (5-400. bc), it was essential to divide the sexual partners in a relationship into a passive and an active part; The one who penetrates and the one who gets penetrated. The men were thus seen as superior to women for this reason. In the relationship between Pausanias and Agathon, Pausanias was politically superior. Agathon was around 15 years old when the middle aged Pausanias took him as his lover. Even in his late 20's, Agathon was described as a young boy, he was known to dress like a woman, and was described as having an attractive feminine appearance.
Paul wrote that the man shall be the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church. The church' general attitude today is to interpret Paul in a way that women and men are equated and equitable in relations. If the church is right about this, there should be no difference in status or value between men and women in any relationship, and hence no difference between men. This whole pederastic constellation would then appear as a perversion of the ideal of equality and balance of power in a relationship. If Paul on the other hand meant that women were subordinate, it doesn't get any better. This means that the man who is the passive part will degrade himself to something less than what God had intended, and the active part would oppress another man.
The way the relationship between Pausanias and Agathon is portrayed, is not coherent with what Paul prescribes as a healthy relationship. Today. healthy, mutual and life long homosexual relationships are not considered oppressing or un-equal. To the church, it's the act itself which is considered a sin, regardless how it's performed. The church now acknowledges that both hetero- and homosexual relationships can be built upon equated and equitable friendships. This is most likely not the kind of relationships Paul had in mind when writing to the Romans.
There has always been disagreements on whether or not Akilles and Patroklos were lovers or only good friends. Homer never writes that they are lovers. Akilles fell in love with the woman Penthesilea right before she died, which indicates that Akilles was either hetero or bisexual. Patroklos on the other hand wished to marry the woman Briseis, and was ready to persuade Akilles into an agreement which made this possible. This indicates that Patroklos didn't want a monogamous or life long relationship with Akilles.
I assume that most churches today do not agree that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, even though the bible states that they kissed, that David stated that his love for Jonathan meant more than womens love, and that their relationship has been interpreted as a pact as strong as a marriage. The story of Akilles and Petroklos is written around the same time as the story about David and Jonathan. Even though there are more textual indicators to assume David and Jonathan being lovers than with Akilles and Petroklos, I still assume that Paul did not regard David and Jonathans relationship any more erotic than the relationship between Akilles and Patroklos. It's also woth noticing that the relationship between Akilles and Patroklos can be interpreted as unequal, and more in line with the tradition of pederasty.
There are many more examples of such relatioships: Harmodios and Arisogeiton, Plutarks writings in the Erotikos, the story about the sacred band of Thebes, the roman philosopher Seneca etc.
To conclude this somewhat bumby post with a question: Was Paul familiar with the kind of homosexual relationships which can relate to what we find in the church today, the monogamous, mutual, faithful, equal and publicly accepted marriage between people of the same sex. Or is he simply addressing the unhealthy and unequal pederastic traditions of his time?