Miss, that is exactly what I do. I do indeed consider cultural relevance, and interpret carefully based on the context of WHO is speaking, WHOM they are speaking to, WHAT they are talking about, and WHEN/WHERE this is placed so as to know the proper interpretation. For instance, I know that the requirements of a Levite priest are not incumbent on ordinary believers. Some practices or promises were given for a specific people in a specific period of time.
Attempting to explain that NT scripture does not mean what it plainly says is another matter. I've explained using quoted posts what my research into ancient homosexual practices revealed: that is was NOT all about prostitution and temple-boys, but that practices more closely resembling modern homosexual practices were indeed part of Greek culture during relevant periods of history.
The Greeks used the term Pederaesty to refer to most of the practices you're talking about, but the NT uses the term arsenkoites. If it referred only to pederasty, then why didn't it say pederasty instead? Instead a term that would likely be understood to more generally refer to homosexuality was used. The most straightforward interpretation is that the scriptures I refereced are condemning homosexuality generally, rather than certain specific ancient practices.... because the authors knew about those ancient practices, and if they meant only those then they would have been more specific.