I can see that Lev. 18:1-3 does suggest a theme of cultural difference. But those verses do not specify idolatrous, pagan temple prostitution. Rather I think verses 1-3 speak much more broadly, and seem to be discouraging the adoption of the sinful sexual habits of the locals. I perceive the focus on pagan idolatry as more isolated to verse 21.

Does the word that is often translated as ‘abomination’ refer to to the pagan practices of other nations? Yes, often it does. But it would seem that this is not exclusively the case. Apparently, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines the word as “properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol — abominable (custom, thing), abomination.”

You ask “Is it the opinion of the scholars that all sexual offenses (not just male-male ones), forbidden foods, maimed sacrifices, remarrying a divorcee who has been married to someone else, and cheating in business are also only prohibited in the context of pagan temples?” My guess is ‘no’. My guess is that the scholars would tend to say that these things were considered sinful whether in the context of pagan temples or outside the context of pagan temples.

Ive looked up Exodus 8:22, but I see neither the English word ‘abomination’ there nor the equivalent in Hebrew. Were you referring to Exodus 8:26? I think the first occurrence is in Genesis, perhaps 43:32. I dont understand your comment that it would be absurd to suggest that Moses considered our practices as ‘abomination’. Which practices, and why not? I would think that there are practices today that could be described as an abomination.

I think it’s unlikely that the translation of “toevah” as “abomination” is clearly wrong. If it was, surely modern Bibles would not translate it that way?

The question of whether male to male sexual relations was depicted as sinful in Leviticus, does not rest simply on the definition of that one Hebrew word. Lev. 18:22 begins with a command not to do it. I perceive the depiction of it as an abomination, as basically a comment at the end of the sentence, after the act has already been outlawed to the Jews. But Im no expert in Hebrew.

Finally in your comment you raise the issue of eating shrimp and engaging in intercourse during menstruation. I have little insight into Jewish systems, but for Christians, the issue of kosher foods differs from the issue of homosexual sexual activity, because Jesus said that eating any food is fine (Matthew chapter 15), but he didnt say any sexual activity is fine. IE it seems that Jesus overruled the old Kosher food laws, but didnt overrule the old sexual activity laws. Jesus reinforced the requirement for sexual purity (Mark 7:21). You might have a good point about intercourse during menstruation. I guess many Christians regard that old law as no longer valid, but I see that some do consider it to remain valid, and do consider it to be sinful. But youre right that there are few Christians who are good at complying with every single one of the many many rules in the Bible about what is sinful.

With reference to the Torah term “toevah”, referring to homosexuality and other practices (see the quoted portion below):

>>Now, whole books have been written about this stuff, but basically Leviticus 18:1-3 and the Deuteronomy 23:17-18 set the scene for arguing that the other Levitical passages are based on idolatrous, same-sex pagan temple prostitution. Scholars argue that the word for “abomination” (toevah) is used to refer to the pagan practices of other nations. You brought evidence from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I will likewise only refer to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Leviticus 18:26, 27, and 29 refers to all of the sins in the chapter (incest, relations when the woman is menstruating, adultery, sacrificing children to Molech, sex between two men, and bestiality) as “toevot”. Deuteronomy 14:3 refers to forbidden foods (animals that don’t chew their cud and have split hooves, aquatic animals that don’t have fins and scales, certain birds, animals that die of themselves, and cooking a kid in it’s mother’s milk) as “toevah”. Deuteronomy 17:1 terms as “toevah” bringing an animal sacrifice that isn’t physically perfect. Deuteronomy24:4 describes as “toevah” a situation where a man divorces his wife, she marries another and is again divorced or widowed, and he remarries her. Deuteronomy 25:16 calls dishonest business practices “toevah”. Is it the opinion of the scholars that all sexual offenses (not just male-male ones), forbidden foods, maimed sacrifices, remarrying a divorcee who has been married to someone else, and cheating in business are also only prohibited in the context of pagan temples?

The first instance of the use of the term occurs when Moses, speaking to Pharaoh, describes the form of ritual that the Hebrews will practice (if only allowed to do so) as “toevah” to the Egyptians (Exodus 8:22). The second occurrence, also in the exodus story, is similar.
It would be absurd to suggest that Moses considered our practices as “abomination”. He does, however, recognize that they are foreign to the Egyptians.

The list of things described as “toevah” (see the quote above) are of a similar nature, They are foreign, in this case to the Hebrews. The translation of “toevah” as “abomination” is clearly wrong. While it may be that Jews have been instructed not to practice male homosexuality or remarrying your ex, it doesn’t follow that these things are inherently evil, disgusting, perverse or whatever other baggage the incorrect term “abomination” implies. It is also true that some foreign practices on the banned list (eg- passing your children through fire) seem pretty self-evidently wrong. However, the Torah often instructs us to avoid wrong action (see some of the ten commandments) without using the term “toevah”. Toevah is not identical to ethics – it is related to culture.

Folks may legitimately use the Torah to criticize homosexual practice as “toevah”, but only if those same folks are prepared never to indulge in the “toevot” of eating shrimp, having sex while the woman has her period, etc. That would appear to rule out most Bible-thumping Christians, as well as a lot of Jews.