The "sin of Sodom" was not what we refer to as "sodomy" today.

The city had already been judged by God, Abraham had tried to bargain with God to spare the city if he could find just 10 righteous people in the whole city; the angels were sent to destroy the city not ‘investigate’. My opponent is simply incorrect here, as shown in Genesis 18:20-21, especially 21: 20 Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! 21 I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.” True, it is not explicitly said here why the [sic] Sodom was "wicked", but I don't think that the men of Sodom just decided to take up "sodomy" on that particular night. This is speculation though. There needs to be some support to this other than my opponent’s mere disbelief. Beyond that, there must be something to show it was more than incidental to these events in the text if it is truly so obvious and important. Neither you nor I can prove in an absolute manner what the "sin of Sodom" was, we can both only speculate. I believe that I have fairly conclusively shown the “sin of Sodom” to be something or some things other than sodomy, especially in light of Ezekiel 16:49: This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. Note, if you had said "homosexuality" instead of "sodomy" your argument would be much simpler to prove [. . .] If there is a reasonable chance that "sodomy" is a significant part of the "Sin of Sodom" this statement is false and your argument is negated. This statement is incorrect. I used the definite article rather than the indefinite article (“the” rather than “a”) before “sin of Sodom,” thus implying (by its definite nature) either exclusivity or at least majority proportion of sodomy as the “sin of Sodom.” In light of the scriptures referenced and the analysis of them (as well as my opponent’s lack of much in way of the same for the Con case), this seems to be something of a straw man. You use the term "incidental", meaning it was a very minor part, to describe the role "sodomy" played. Firstly, I wish to append “if it played a role at all,” as this was chronologically prior to Levitical law being given, which codified many behaviours as sinful. Secondly, I used "incidental" to mean that the citizens could have mistreated the travelers in a way that was itself sinful or that was not sinful (for example, beating a man was not a sin, but it did require payment be made to the victim as reparation). The status of their mistreatment as sinful or not sinful had nothing to do with the situation. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the idea that if the men of Sodom had been more pleasant to travelers, but still committed rampant sodomy, then the city of Sodom would not have had enough "sin" to warrant destruction. Actually, “might not” have been destroyed is more likely. As Levitical law was not yet in place, this is a reasonable point on which to hold back from making a definitive statement. Considering the evolving nature of sin as God’s relationship with the Hebrews—and later humanity as a whole—changed (for example, sleeping with one’s siblings was originally not sin—unless you make the non-scriptural and non-traditional assertion that God created more people than simply Adam and Eve—but by the time of Levitical law, incest was a sin. Likewise, eating shellfish was a sin under Levitical law, but not in the New Testament. Sin changed as God's relationship with humanity changed.) At this point, I also wish to pre-empt the possible assertion that Levitical law was in fact in place prior to it being codified and given to the Hebrews. There is nothing suggesting this in the Old Testament (if the claim is to be made, it would need to be properly cited), and God is shown to be giving laws to the Hebrews on several occassions through Moses. None of this would have been necessary had these laws already been in place. You say that it is just "word choice" that gives a sexual connotation to the "sin of Sodom" in the New Testament, but it seems pretty clear that a connotation of "unnatural" is warranted, and the reader can use discretion in this manner to determine if "sodomy" is sufficiently "unnatural". It is academically and theologically dishonest to use modern English word connotations in the interpretation of a translation taken from two-thousand year-old (and older) texts that come from different cultural perspectives. Thus, the statement that "it seems pretty clear" is simply wrong. The reader can indeed use discretion, but that discretion needs to include the type of perspectives I have attempted to offer. My opponent needs to provide evidence to back this assertion up from the point of view of the original languages, not merely a translation, especially considering how much of the Con argument would rely on such an interpretation. The New Testament speaks in this manner to a great extent, granted they are different chapters, but they still give an idea of what the writers of the epistles were talking about when they think of unnatural acts. I would that my opponent had provided these examples, that I might have addressed them (likely being texts from Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude, all of which rely on tenuous-at-best translations of the Greek words “αρσενοκο^3;της,” [arsenokoites—which is a word literally created by the Apostle Paul; there is no earlier use of the term in existence], “μαλακa2;ς,” [malakos—meaning literally soft, but not the derivative malakia, which is effeminacy], and occasionally the outright mistranslation, no vagueness at all, of “πa2;ρνος,” [pornos—meaning fornicator, generally compared specifically to an adulterer]). These were not provided, however, so this is something of a moot point. Con has, thus far, asserted that sodomy could very well have been part of the “sin of Sodom,” but has provided no verses that show this to be the case, nor has Con addressed directly (at least not effectively) any of the issues raised with the vaguer verses that have already been mentioned. My opponent asserts that I have shown nothing definitively, yet nothing but conjecture, opinion, and some false logic has been offered as a counter. Surely it is reasonable to conclude that if sodomy were indeed a significant portion of the “sin of Sodom” (otherwise, I point out again, I would have said “a ‘sin of Sodom’”), it would have been mentioned as both specifically having happened and it would have been referenced in one of the many verses that harken back to the story of Sodom later in the Bible. This is simply not the case. My opponent could very well make the same arguments thus far made on the Con side by replacing “sodomy” with “drinking orange Gatorade.” Merely because the texts in the Bible do not mention drinking orange Gatorade outright does not mean that it is reasonable to assume it could have been a portion—let alone a significant portion—of the sin of Sodom.