Actually, the Hebrew word used is the generic form of "man", that means "men" generically (which included females). But ultimately it doesn't really matter for the points made.
And yet you are trying to claim that, despite the fact we have no evidence of sexual immorality on those cities, that they were also destroyed for homosexuality. This is yet another reason why your interpretation for Sodom, beyond not agreeing with the Bible, fails.
That is the traditional explanation. And though it doesn't matter for my claims, there are a number of Bible Scholars who believe this traditional idea cannot be supported by facts.
Regardless, while Genesis and Leviticus are thought by many to have been written at the same time, they were both written by Moses, who lives some 200 years after Lot. Leviticus was supposedly written after Moses brought the 10 Commandments down from the mountain. Trying to claim that Lot was subject to the laws of Leviticus would be like saying the Founding Fathers of the US were subject to the laws of today because some people today have written history books of the Revolution.
Still doesn't matter, though I don't think the Bible ever mentions that Lot did not have sons. Rather we know of Lot's daughters only because 1) they were offered to the mob and 2) they seduced their father. It still doesn't counter the point, if Lot knew these people were homosexual why did he offer his daughters. If they were truly homosexual Lot would have known the crowd would have had no interest in his daughters.
You might also want to look at Judges 19 for a comparison story. Basically the story is roughly the same as Sodom except 1) the man was a traveler and 2) it occurred in Israel (in Ephraim in the town of Gibeah). Like Sodom, the men of the town surrounded the house and cried out to bring the traveler out that they might have sex with him. Like Sodom, the owner of the house offered his virgin daughter to the crowd. Like Sodom, they would not listen to the man. Unlike Sodom, the traveler's concubine was sent out to the crowd, whom the crowd then abused all night long, after which she died of the abuse.
This story helps reinforce the point these people didn't want sex to gratify some homosexual urge, rather it was to hurt the stranger in town. They rejected the daughter, they were not out to hurt the man who lived in their town, but accepted the concubine, which by abusing her they were still getting their point across that the traveler was not welcome.
So people aren't responsible for their actions when they are drunk?
I never claimed it didn't. I merely claimed that the Bible does not support the idea that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality. There are far too many facts that one has to ignore to believe that. Rather, the raping of men in this time frame (which we find from the history of the area) was meant to emasculate men, to send a message that their worth was no higher than that of a woman. Since women were typically considered property at this time frame, the rape of a man sent the message that he was no better than a slave.
Actually, the language of the Bible is hardly clear. Since you chose Leviticus, it literally says "and with a male you shall not lay in the bed (layings) of a woman". From the way it is written it seems far more likely to point to adultery with another man that homosexuality as we know it. Further, of the various death penalty sins in Leviticus, all are replicated in Deuteronomy except homosexuality (if we follow your belief). The death penalty crime that would seems like it should match is only for participating in pagan sex acts (many Bibles define it as sex with a temple prostitute). From the context, especially the odd phrasing in Leviticus, it looks like Leviticus is actually talking about the Pagan male sex acts and not all homosexuality.
In the New Testament, Romans 1 is clearly talking of people who reject God for idols, and "because of this" (Romans 1:26) do homosexual acts.
Last, in the Greece that Paul grew up in, there were six different words that were clearly understood to mean "homosexual". Rather than using one of those commonly understood words, that everyone would have understood clearly meant homosexuality, Paul appears to have invented his own word, and the word after Paul was never frequently used. We have no real idea what Paul meant, other than it is a compound word of the words "man" and "bed". Early translations typically defined this word as "masturbator", it is only in the last 500 years or so (the time of the translation of the King James version) that it was interpreted as homosexual.
I'm not going to claim if homosexual is condemned by the Bible or not, it doesn't really matter to me. But homosexuality is not clearly condemned by the Bible, especially when it is mentioned 6 times and sinful heterosexual sex is listed over 350 times. Or are you stating that God wanted people to find the loopholes (such as having multiple concubines) to have extra heterosexual sex.
