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

Thank you for the bible verses that you presented, they provided a good background for the debate. I would also like to request that I be able to use a Catholic RSV Bible, since I am Catholic and I own this version. If not, I will use a Protestant Bible, since I did agree to the debate terms. You did a good job of outlining the city of Sodom, some of its sinful nature, and various references to Sodom in the New and Old Testament. I would like to elaborate on the term "sodomy" with a link here about the history of sodomy laws. http://en.wikipedia.org... And a dictionary definition of it "Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I would argue that the city of Sodom was a sinful city, and the main evidence shown in the story of Lot indicates that they were depraved in their desires and essentially wanted to engage in sexual relations with multiple sources. Note that they preferred Lot's male guests over his female daughter. It seems clear that they did not have a sense of sexuality as requiring a procreative purpose, i.e. sodomy. Although other practices are not explicitly mentioned, it seems clear that the people of Sodom were probably willing to have sex with men and women, and probably other sex practices that did not have a procreative end. True, some of the words in question can be difficult to translate, which may seem like it confuses the issue, but the message seems clear throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, chasteness in the New Testament, which is the fulfillment of the uncleanness principle in the Old Testament. Many of the sexual practices mentioned in the Old Testament that make one unclean are due to the fact that inhibit procreation. Spilling one's seed, having a period, just being pregnant, homosexual relations, relations with animals. In addition, sex with close relatives is prohibited, probably because the result of that pregnancy would be an abomination; i.e. birth defects. This is the Old Testament, and we are Christians who fulfill the New Testament. We are called to a higher standard, as Jesus said "Looking at a woman lustfully is akin to adultery". Cleanness, the equivalent of being technically correct in the letter of the law, is replaced by chastity, a state of being that calls one to abstain from sexual immorality. Sodomy is basically a catch-all term for those sex acts that cannot result in procreation, of which homosexuality is clearly one of them. As for the "Sin of Sodom", it appears that their sins were many, homosexuality being one of them. The people of Sodom could be more accurately described as being "depraved" or "debauched", they had lost their way from God and thus sought to indulge themselves in ever greater levels of rebellion and unnatural behavior. As evidenced by your verse from 2 Peter: Verse 10: especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority. The verse from Jude you mentioned Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. To sum up, the sin of Sodom appears to be a lack of chastity or cleanliness, homosexuality being one example of unnatural sexual behavior that fits under the umbrella of Sodom's sin, which is the basis of our idea of sodomy today. The people became so unconcerned with a sense of purpose being attached to sexual relations that they preferred men over a young virgin. Some criticize Lot for his actions here, but it is meant to show how far his penchant for hospitality went, and the fact that God is willing to reward those who will sacrifice dearly for him. Lot mentions the youth of his daughter and her virginity for two reasons, in the hopes that the men will choose her over the guests, since she has two qualities that were highly prized in Mediterranean society. The other is the moral, which is meant for our sake as readers today, the youth and virginity contrasts with a couple of random travelers, most likely sweaty and dirty from a full day of walking in the desert. These men had lost their sense of the meaning of sexual relations, which need the possibility of procreation present in order to be acceptable in the eyes of God. Of course, marriage is the other half of this equation, which rules out random sexual relations with strangers of the opposite sex that would still have the possibility of procreation. I realize that this seems like it could be construed as being in line with the Pro-side of the argument, but I believe that since the Pro-side has the burden of proof, my duty as the Con side is to show that unnatural/homosexual relations were a significant part of the "sin of Sodom". Other sins can be implied, and most likely were present, but it seems like the capstone was a total reversal from God's intent for men and women. Note that it can probably be implied that this was "normal" in Sodom, i.e. committing depraved sexual acts, the scene with Lot is intended to show a "snapshot" of a how life was like in Sodom. Its sin was great, so great that it reached the levels witnessed by the angels. I believe that this behavior classifies as "sodomy" by today's standards, which includes homosexual and other non-procreative sexual acts. Every homosexual act is an act of sodomy, every act of sodomy is not necessarily a homosexual act.