

No.  It is very relevant.  Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are
topically aranged together in the law.  This is very important.
Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality
deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there
is no proof for this.)  If the Law reveals the character of God, and 
is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then
those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts
to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture.  

Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human
adult relationships?  Isn't that bordering on sophistry?  The point
we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts.
Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional
argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors.
The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly.  

I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member
of the same sex.  I have them, and we all do.  The issue at hand is 
the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after.
So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation. 

And the idea that these relationships may be  emotional  relationships
between adult humans is red herring.  We all agree that it is okay 
for adults to  have caring relationships with one another.