Dear....
You said,

      "In regards to this subject of male vs. female homosexuality I would  like to point out something I learned in Karaite Anthology pg. 247,  point 28.    

 "The third variety is called comparative analogy or, as the scholars term it, "equal nature."  For example, it is written: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of the father's brother (Lev. 18:14),  from which we learn by way of comparative analogy that the same prohibition applies also to the mother's brother."

Nehemia says:

While the book Karaite Anthology contains much interesting information about Karaism we must be careful not to simply mimic the medieval Karaite sages. They said many correct things but also many incorrect things.  This applies not only to specific interpretation but sometimes also to methods of interpretation.  The clearest example of the medieval Karaite error in interpreting Scripture is in the field of Forbidden Marriages, also referred to as Laws of Incest (Hebrew: Arayot, meaning "nakednesses"). 

The early medieval Karaite sages freely used analogy on the laws of Forbidden Marriages and this quickly became "runaway analogy". 

Analogy can only be used if it makes sense to the user.  The basic test question is this: When the ancient Israelites heard the Torah read to them in the desert did they have reason to apply the same analogy? 

The medieval Karaites often lost site of this basic definition of Peshat (Plain Meaning) and used analogy in instances which defy reason and are contrary to the evidence of Scripture. In the case of Forbidden Marriages, they ended up forbidding marriages that the Torah itself explicitly allows and sometimes even requires! 

For example, a woman who has no brothers must marry her first paternal cousin in order to inherit her father's land.  Yet using runaway analogy the medieval Karaite sages determined that it was forbidden to marry a first cousin! 

Eventually this theory of Forbidden Marriages known as "Rikuv Theory" was rejected even by the medieval Karaite sages (although Qirqisani whom you quoted was an adherent of the Rikuv Theory). 

All of this should remind us of two fundamental principles:

1) Search well in the Scripture and do not rely on anyone's opinion.

2) Never lose sight of the concept of Peshat (Plain Meaning).  When the Torah was given there were no hidden commandments (Dt 29:28). 

Everything was obvious to the ancient Israelites, as it is written: "This commandment which I command you today is not difficult for you.. for the matter is very close to you, it is in your mouth and in your heart so that you may do it." (Dt 30:11-14).

Here are some examples of when to use Hekkesh (often translated: "analogy"):    

a) Often the Torah teaches a general principle with one or more concrete example.  For example, Ex 23:4 talks about returning the lost bull or donkey of our enemy but this also applies to other lost animals such as a camel or a dog.    

b) The Torah phrases some commandments in the masculine which in Hebrew can have the meaning of neuter.  For example, "You (male) shall not murder" has the meaning of "You (male or female) shall not murder". 

The linguistic rule is that when the audience consists of both males and females they are addressed in the masculine.  So because there were women in the audience hearing the commandment "You (male) shall not murder" it was automatically understood as "You (male or female) shall not murder".

May YHWH be with you,

Nehemia Gordon