Sodom and Gomorra were neither Judged by God as wicked nor destroyed because of homosexuality

My opponent tells us that in Genesis chapter 6, angels left their first estate (Heaven) to marry human women. He then claims that God punishes these angels for having sexual relations with women on Earth, because it is unnatural. What verse leads him to this conclusion? Jude 1:6-7 which reads “6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” He asserts that Jude links the ‘going after strange flesh’ in Sodom and Gomorra, to the unnatural sins that caused God to punish the angels who married human women. But firstly, what contextual evidence proves to us that the angels who took human wives, were the same angels being punished in Jude 1:6? Genesis 6:1-2 says “1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”. Where in this verse does it lead us to believe that the angels who married women, left heaven to do so? How do we know that these angels were not already present on earth when they decided they wanted human wives? Verse 4 says “4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown”. The text never deems this as unnatural or sinful in any way, nor is God shown to have chastised the angels for their behavior. So then what leads us to believe that Jude 1:6 is referring to the angels who had children with women, instead of the rebellious angels who, under the leadership of Satan, were punished by God? Revelation 12:7-9 reads “7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” This verse explicitly tells us that this group of angels (Satan and his followers) were most definitely punished and cast out of Heaven. And Revelation 12:4 which says “4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born” tells us that Satan and his angels, which accounted for a third of all of God’s angels (stars of Heaven), left heaven and went down to earth. But Genesis 6:14 mentions none of this happening to the angels who took human wives. Therefore, because Con’s presupposition that the angels who took wives in Genesis chapter 1, are the same angels punished for those sins in Jude 1:6; lacks the sufficient evidence, and or a rational scriptural basis to back it up; one can only conclude that any argument he presents that is based on this assumption, is automatically invalidated as a false claim based on faulty character association. My opponent then goes on to assert that Romans chapter 1 calls homosexuality unnatural, and that this proclamation surely must be the ‘strange flesh’ that Jude mentioned as one of the sins of Sodom and Gomorra. But are we to automatically assume that because Paul supposedly deemed homosexuality as unnatural, that the sexual relations between two people of the same sex (whom share the same human flesh), constitutes as going after ‘strange flesh’? Based on what biblical evidence can we logically link supposed unnatural sex acts between humans, to that of sexual acts geared towards strange flesh? How do we know that strange flesh doesn’t mean animal flesh, thereby implying bestiality? We don’t know, because Jude neither elaborated nor defined what strange flesh actually is. And it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that going after strange flesh is nothing more than a euphemism for homosexual relations, when we have not the scriptural evidence to prove it. This makes Con’s assertions yet again, invalid. I must bring to the attention of the readers the fact that my opponent is trying to twist the contents of my opening statement. He says “Pro argues that the word "know" here is not being used in a sexual way, yet, he later admits the men came to RAPE the visitors under Lot's roof”, when in fact I’ve said no such thing. My opening statement merely analyzed two different points of view about the connation of the word ‘know’. To quote myself, I said, “So let us assume that there IS a sexual connotation to the word ‘know’ in the case of the people’s intentions towards Lot’s guest, and that only the men of the city would partake in it…” This is not an ‘admission’ that the men of Sodom were intent on raping Lot’s guest, but simply me attempting to apply rational scrutiny to this particular viewpoint. According to Con, there’s no evidence that women and girls were a part of the crowd that confronted Lot, but asserts that we know that men and boys were present. I agree that we know that men and boys were a part of the angry mob, but there is also evidence that women and girls were a part of it as well. Firstly, Genesis 19:4 says “4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:” explicitly stating that ‘all the people from every quarter’ of Sodom were gathered around Lot’s home. If it were just the men that were present, the verse would have only said that every male from every quarter stood before Lot’s home. Secondly, remember that in Genesis 18:32 God agreed not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous people could be found. Thus, in order for the cities to be found wicked (which they were), both the women and girls would have had to be found wicked as well. And since it was this specific mob incident that provoked God’s wrath, logically we can conclude that women and girls were also present in the attack against Lot, and therefore judged as wicked by God. But he also says that even if women and girls were present, and they too were attempting to rape the angels, that wouldn’t change the fact that men and boys were also present, which would make them guilty of homosexual rape. In Con’s opinion, a man would have to be either homosexual or bisexual in order to rape a man. He even goes as far as saying “A person would have to be homosexual or at least bisexual (which still involves homosexual behavior) in order to rape someone of the same sex.” This, in his opinion constitutes as grounds for homosexual conduct, and thus evidence that homosexuality was a cause of Sodom and Gomorra’s destruction. But are men who rape other men really homosexual, and or bisexual by default? No. In fact, 98% of all Rapist who have sexually assaulted men are heterosexual (http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com...). And before my opponent claims that heterosexual women could have perpetrated the majority of these rapes, the facts show that male perpetrators account for 97-98% of all male sexual assault cases (http://www.uwstout.edu...). So in all actuality, a man is more likely to be raped by a heterosexual man than a homosexual, or bisexual man, rendering Con’s argument as nothing more than a false accusation. During round 4 I will prove the rest of Con's arguments to be invalid, as well as introduce key evidence of my own to prove that the word 'know' was used in a context of attempted murder, instead of attempted rape.