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

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged. Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Pro uses statistics from a rape crisis centre claiming that 98% of men who rape men are heterosexual. Just because they deny they are gay doesn't mean they are, such a thing isn't easy to admit in a society which looks down on the practise. But even if the men of Sodom were not gay, what they wanted to do to Lot's guests was a homosexual act. The act of two men having sex is a homsoexual act, and sex is sex regarless of weather it is forced or not. Rape is still sex (although it is forced), so I don't see this as refuting my position. When a man puts on a dress, or wears lipstic, or has the mannerisms of a woman, out intuition, our conscience, our guts, call it whatever you like, but something inside all of us tells us that this person is either gay, or at least leaning in that direction. What else are we to think of a man who rapes another man? Pro maintains that there were women in the crowd because of the word "people," but are not men and boys "people"? The men and boys are the "people" of the text, and it is claer that Pro is trying to fit in the text characters it doesn't mention. He also argues that Lot didn't know that God was going to destroy the city until after the incident with the men who wanted to rape his guests. But this doesn't rebut my point. If God destroyed the city for rape, and Lot was offering them to rape his daughters, shouldn't Lot also have been destroyed since he was guilty of the same crime they were? We haven't gotten an answer from Pro on this. What was the difference between them wanting to rape the two men, and Lot offering them to rape his two daughters? One act invovled the unnatural, the other does not; one act is called an abomination, the other, while still wrong, is not! Pro then uses Judges 19:1-20:5 to prove that "know" can mean "kill" or "murder." But he has failed in this regard. Judges 19:22 simply says the men wanter to "know" his guests. In verse 24 the man offers them his daughter instead. Verse 25 says: "But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his wife, and brought her forth unto them; and they KNEW her, AND abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." Notice that they BOTH knew her AND abused her. The two terms are not used synonymously; and futher, after knowing and abusing her, she still was not dead. They let her go. It wasn't their KNOWING her that caused her to die later in the story. It was their ABUSING her that caused her death. So by "knowing" her, they were doing just what "knowing" means in the other texts I have mentioned such as Genesis 4:1 and Matthew 1:25. They knew (had sex with) her, and abused her. People don't die from being "known," they don't die from having sex. Pro then mentions Judges 20:5 where the man says that the mob wanted to kill him, but this doesn't mean that the word "know" meant to kill. This is the conclusion he reached beacuse of what happened to his weak wife; but who knows, he may have survived the abuse. But even if I admit that he was right in assuming they wanted to kill him, this doesn't prove Pro's point. They could want to both know AND kill him, just as they knew AND abused the girl. It would be the abuse, NOT THE KNOWING that would have lead to his death, just as it happened with hers. So we have good Biblical evidence that "know" means to "have sex with." We have yet no Biblical proof that it means to kill someone. We have seen that men and boys were in the crowd that came to Lot's house, we have no Biblical proof women and girls were there. We also know that a male raping a male is a homosexual act (even if the person doing it claims to be heterosexaul). A man raping another man would still be guilty of breaking the law of Leviticus 18:22 which condemens homosexual acts. We also know that homosexuality is unnatural according to Romans 1:26-27, and would constitute "going after strange flesh" as mentioned in Jude 6-7. We thus have good reason to conclude Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the sin of homosexuality as chief among their other sins.