Lev 20:13 also does not prohibit homosexuality. Go figure.

Ok, you say, so maybe Lev 18:22 doesn't prohibit homosexuality.  Lev 20:13 does.

Except, of course, that it doesn't.  In Lev 20:13, we again find משׁכבי אישׁה.  Specifically, the verse says  אִשׁ אשׁר ישׁכבה את זכר משׁכבי אִשׁה בועבה עדו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם

"A man who will lie with a male in woman's beds both do ill, they will die, their blood on them."

That sounds dire.  I have translated "toevah" as "ill" because, as we have seen, the severity of the translation depends on the proximity to the Judean people.  I am assuming, in this instance, that the proximity to the Judean people is not the principal issue.

But we have noticed that Lev 18:22 does not make such a harsh declaration.  מה נשׁתנה?  How has this made itself different?

Lev 20:12 says  אשׁ אהר ישׁכב את כלתו מות ימתו שׁניהם תבל עשׂו דמִהמ בם
A man who lies with the woman he contracted to provide heirs for his son (כלתו) both will die, they have made confusion (תבל).  Their blood is on them.

Lev 20:14 says אשׁ אשׁר יקח את־אשׁה ואת־אמה הוא באשׁ ישׂרפו אתו ואתהן תהיה זמה בתוככם
A man who lies with a woman who is also a mother will be burned with fire.  There will be no immorality in your midst.

Le 20:14 says   אישׁ אשׁר יתן שׁכבתו בבהמה מות יומת את הבֶהמה תהרגו
A man who gives himself to lie with an animal will die, the animal will be killed.

All of these events have something in common--the possibility of producing offspring the ownership of which creates problems:  The man who lies with the woman he has acquired to produce heirs for his son (think Judah/Tamar), creates a situation whereby the ownership of the offspring could disinherit the son for whom the woman was contracted.

The man who lies with a woman who is already a mother creates the difficulty of presuming to attempt to steal the offspring of another man.

The man who gives himself to lie with an animal risks th animal producing offspring that is half-human half-animal.

So again, rather than encountering a text that prohibits homosexuality, we find a text in which ownership of the product of the union is a serious legal question, the disputation of which is unwelcome.