Sodomy

[herev]

I guess I am saying Tommy that Scripture says certain acts are unlawful. If an act is unlawful, does the relationship around which the act takes place make it now lawful?

IOW, if certain sex acts are deemed wrong in Scripture, where do we see these as acceptable within a marriage? If God condemnds certain acts, wouldn't an exception of these acts in the case of marriage be specifically outlined?


Well, as a married woman I can say that sex is indeed good. LOL! God has given this as a gift to us to enjoy. He even admonishes us not to deprive one another of this intimacy unnecessarily (loose paraphrase there). So, suffice it to say that sex is good.

You say that sex is good "within bounds." How do you define these bounds according to Scripture? Where do you see God giving direction ot married couples in this area apart form the commands He gives about sex in general?

I agree that there are boundaries, and I think those boundaries are what He sets forth as unlawful sex acts period, regardless of who they are practiced by. IOW, being married doesn't change what God considers lawful.


That is rather funny!!! I also agree that some can be prudish. Yet, if there are bounds (as you suggest), where does God define those bounds in Scripture?

the bounds as I see them are simply that sex is to be enjoyed within a marriage of a man and a woman--I also stress again that this must be consential, so that no one is degraded or forced into acts that are harmful to them.
I think the difference in opinion is that we see the definition of Sodomy from a biblical perspective differently. I see Sodomy as being homosexual sex acts--I think (and of course I may be wrong, but I'm trying ) that you see Sodomy as specific sex acts, without regard to who's doing them--is that right? Am I even getting close?
Because basically, I agree with everything you are saying except that these acts are forbidden in marriage.
Keep feeding me more--I usually follow your logic, even when we disagree, but I'm having a hard time--must be tired--on the way to bed soon, may have to pick this up tomorrow

 

[herev]

Well, what i would say is that there are specific sexual acts that are forbidden by God. Sodomy is just one set of those acts (i.e. adultery, beastiality...)

Also, the word whoremongers in Hebrews 13:4 includes those who engage in these unlawful acts.

In reading Hebrews 13:4, how does that verse imply that oral sex is impure in the marriage bed? I think I should give up tonight, I'll check in tomorrow, but I really must be out of it--I can't follow.
God bless

 

[searchingforGodlyanswers]

Quote from my earlier post:
Hello,
I am new here to this website, and I came across these forums based on a search: "Christian sodomy definition". Most dictionaries and law sites seem to have differing definitions, so I thought I would ask Bible believing Christians here what is the definition of sodomy according to GOD in the Bible? Is it something that a man and wife can do but should not, or does it just pertain to men lying with men and women with women?
I have a book in which the author quotes Song of Songs 2:3, 4:16, 5:1, 6:2-3, 7:2, 8:2. I wish to please God and not do wrong. So far what I understand is that it (sodomy) is outside the marriage between a man and a woman. I have read and reread two stories in the Bible (Judges 19-20 & Genesis 19 NKJV), in which groups of men wanted to do wrong and one website even seemed to suggest that mastubation was wrong, claiming what happened in Genesis 38.
From reading the first part of Genesis, I do not see any sexual restrictions that God made on Adam and Eve. All I see is that sesually HE wanted them to be fruitful and multiply and general restriction wise for them to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since Adam lived to be 930 years, wasn't he bound to have done some things which today according to some laws of this world would be considered illegal if there were no great detail on how to be and how not to be a husband and wife (I'm talking the nitty gritty details)?
If sodomy is anything other than the one act of procreation, then should this pertain to doctors examining with insturments, feminine products, contraceptive products, a husband and wife touching or kissing each other or certain erotic acts/stimulations, etc.?
My question: where is the line drawn according to GOD and the Bible and if it's possible that my spouse and I can within the confines of a marriage commit sodomy, and if so how so that I know to avoid all forms of evil and sexual lust.

 

[searchingforGodlyanswers]

The book I have looked at is by Dr. Kevin Leman.
He uses the NIV to quote scripture in his book Sheet Music.
His fruit is sweet to my taste 2:3
Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits. 4:16
I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink; drink your fill O lovers 5:1
My lover has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to browse in the gardens and to gather lilies. I am my lover's and my lover is mine; he browses among the lilies. 6:2-3
Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. 7:2
I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomgranates. 8:2

If we are to take this literally, they have a garden with fruits, and her navel is a cup that never stops producing wine, but if this is a metaphor, then it seems to okay certain acts within marriage. According to Leman, "Many teachers believe that some of these passages directly relate to oral sex..............In fact the Bible is silent on whether marital oral sex is immoral-which says to most Bible scholars that it must be okay. If God was so concerned about it, the reasoning goes, surely he would have forbidden it." He goes on to talk about it as kissing and more hygienic than French kissing.
I can disagree with the hygiene part- according to my microbiology class there are germs in urine and according to some studies, one of which was done on the news, there are fecal bacteriae located on shopping cart handles and remote controls (don't ask me how it gets there!lol). So in my opinion the mouth, ears, nose, and genitals have germs lurking about. Warm, dark moist places can be a breeding ground for bacteria and viruses, wherever the place is. Brushing your teeth or taking a bath will not get rid of all the viruses and all the bacteria inside a person's body. So I don't know how this relates to if it's wrong or right...?


On another note, what about the guy who emitted on the ground? He displeased God, and the LORD killed him. Genesis 38:9-10 (NKJV)
But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he emitted on the ground......
After this the wife fornicates with her father-in-law and she and he were not destroyed.
I'm confused about how come within the confines of marriage Onan did wrong, and how did his older brother Er do wrong so that GOD destroyed him too but not the wife and Judah (the father-in-law)? Does this mean it's wrong for a husband to touch himself (mastubate), his wife (mutual mastubation), or to stop near the end if he has a problem with what he's doing (a form of contraception for some people)? Am I missing something here?

In Leviticus 18, I see no mention of certain sex acts between husband and wife that are prohibited.

If sex outside of marriage is wrong, then the marriage bed makes the sex act itself pure within the confines of marriage.
Here's a rhetorical question: If a country makes a law against Bible distributing and beats a woman to death for handing out Bibles, does that mean that their laws (man's laws) are right? If in tribulation, it is considered unlawful to worship the one true God, that is also man's or the enemy's law (Rev. 13:7, 13:15), but what about GOD's laws? As far as the law books and definitions go, these are subject to change, just like the word "gay" used to not refer to homosexuality but to cheerfulness. There are other words that have either become (almost) obsolete or in which the definitions have changed.
God, however, is the same yesterday, today, and always. There is only one correct answer to this dilemma, and that is God's answer, not the whims of men that are subject to change, blown every which way like/by the winds...but still the question remains-what is HIS definition of sodomy.
So far I still have male with male and felmale with female, and I cannot find where it is wrong for a man to be with his wife in more than just procreational ways. If this were so, wouldn't God have kept restrictions on Adam and Eve and told them what the could and could not do instead of just be fruitful and multiply and to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Wouldn't it have been in Leviticus for a woman to not be with her husband in certain ways? All I see as rules on what goes on between husband and wife is when she is going through that time of the month, post child birth, and there are also things about fluids (sperm &discharges) and bumps, etc. (Lev. 12, 13, 15, 18). Even according to this the private parts have the capability of being unclean.
It also talks about the priests examining sores on the body for leprosy, so to me that is the same as a doctor/nurse/medical staff examining a patient. If that is so, why do I feel so bad when a female doctor/physician's assistant/nurse practitioner/nurse examines me? If I am supposed to have convictions when doing wrong or contemplating things, then would that mean if I have no convictions about that particular action, that it is okay to do or is that something subject to change?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I'm not sure why God saw fit to punish Onan in such a drastic way, but I believe his crime was to selfishly avoid getting his brother's widow pregnant so his brother wouldn't have an heir. This action also broke one of the laws governing Jewish society at that time, which stated that if a man died childless his brother should get his widow pregnant and the first child (I think) would be deemed the dead brother's heir.

When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, 6 and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying, "I have no desire to marry her," 9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, "This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house." 10 Throughout Israel his family shall be known as "the house of him whose sandal was pulled off." (Deuteronomy 25:5-12, NRSV)

Karin

 

[Ainesis]

In reading Hebrews 13:4, how does that verse imply that oral sex is impure in the marriage bed? I think I should give up tonight, I'll check in tomorrow, but I really must be out of it--I can't follow.
God bless

Tommy,

I hope you got some rest.

Let me ask it this way. If there are boundaries for sex within a marriage, where are these boundaries defined in Scripture?

 

[Merseymike]

Thing is, sodomy isn't actually a word found in the Bible anyway - its a later invention. It doesn't refer solely to sex between gay people. legally, it has been used to cover both anal and oral sex in some cases, but generally it is used to refer to anal sex. Which is practiced by both gay and straight couples, though I must stress here that not all gay couples partake...

It also depends which country you are in and what that particular legal code says in terms of how it is defined. In the vast bulk of western countries, consensual sex between adults is not a criminal offence.

 

[Ainesis]

Hi Searching for Godly Answers,

I am not familiar with the book or author you name, but I will share my thoughts.

He uses the NIV to quote scripture in his book Sheet Music.
His fruit is sweet to my taste 2:3
Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits. 4:16
I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink; drink your fill O lovers 5:1
My lover has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to browse in the gardens and to gather lilies. I am my lover's and my lover is mine; he browses among the lilies. 6:2-3
Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. 7:2
I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomgranates. 8:2

If we are to take this literally, they have a garden with fruits, and her navel is a cup that never stops producing wine, but if this is a metaphor, then it seems to okay certain acts within marriage. According to Leman, "Many teachers believe that some of these passages directly relate to oral sex..............

I would agree that the language here is speaking in metaphors, but I think it is a leap of logic to say "Okay, since it is a metaphor, it must mean oral sex is okay."

Remember to, this is not just a book of romantic love between a man and a wife, it is also a portrayal of God's love for and relationship with His Church.

Honestly, anyone can take one or two verses from the Bible and come up with conclusions that are completely false. That is not a solid approach to Bible study or to Scriptural understanding.

Lastly, many of the metaphors sort of explain themselves. While this post is not about Songs of Solomon (although maybe such a topic would be interesting), I might suggest reading through the book to compare the symbolism above to what is actually stated.

For example, Songs of Solomon Chapter 4:11 states "Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon."

If the text itself says that the honeycomb is a metaphor for the lips and honey and milk are under the tongue, is that really a metaphor for oral sex? I don't think so. It actually sounds like one very passionate kiss being that the honeycomb, honey, and milk are found in one's mouth. To drink from that means to place my mouth on His.

Is pomegranates really a reference to oral sex? Again, look at the book Songs of Solomon itself to see what it is.

"Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks." (Chapter 4:3)

"As a piece of a pomegranate are thy temples within thy locks." (Chapter 6:7)

The temples [Raqqah] here are references to her head and the locks [Tsammah] references to a woman's veil. If the pomegranate is referring to her head (which the Scriptures say it is), then those references again are speaking of passionate and even ravishing kisses being exchanged between the lovers. No reference to oral sex.

Let's let Solomon also explain to us what wine is.

"And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak." Chapter 7:9

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." Chapter 1:2

Again, we see that the wine being tasted comes from the mouth.

So, I won't derail this into a study on Songs of Solomon. I would just caution you to study the book for yourself. Unless there is something more sound that this author provides, the assertion that these are references to oral sex are unfounded. The book itself tells oyu of what it speaks. It is passionate? Yes! Is is erotic? Yes! However, there are no references to oral sex in it that I can see.

On another note, what about the guy who emitted on the ground? He displeased God, and the LORD killed him. Genesis 38:9-10 (NKJV)
But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he emitted on the ground......
After this the wife fornicates with her father-in-law and she and he were not destroyed.
I'm confused about how come within the confines of marriage Onan did wrong, and how did his older brother Er do wrong so that GOD destroyed him too but not the wife and Judah (the father-in-law)? Does this mean it's wrong for a husband to touch himself (mastubate), his wife (mutual mastubation), or to stop near the end if he has a problem with what he's doing (a form of contraception for some people)? Am I missing something here?

Some churches use this as an admonition against masturbation and/or contraception, but I don't think that is what is being addressed here. Basically, under the Old Testament, if a man dies before leaving behind an heir, the brother is supposed to come unto the wife and raise up seed for the dead husband so that he can continue to have an heir. It was a horrible thing to have no heirs and to have no one to carry on your name. It was essentially the same as being wiped off of the earth since there remined no rememberance of you. What Onan did wrong was failing to honor the memory of his brother for selfish reasons. Since the seed frought forth would be the heir for his dead brother (and not his own), he decided not to do it.

God, however, is the same yesterday, today, and always. There is only one correct answer to this dilemma, and that is God's answer, not the whims of men that are subject to change, blown every which way like/by the winds...but still the question remains-what is HIS definition of sodomy.

I agree with that completely. Also, just as a note, unlawful sexual practices includes more than just sodomy.

The rets of your post seemed to be an outpouring of various thoughts on your mind in this area. Because this post is already so long, I won't address those. But if there is anything more you would like to raise, I'll ladly give you my thoughts.

 

[Knight]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question........

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I've got a book on parenting by Dr Leman. I found it helpful back in my evangelical days. It wasn't oozing with scriptural references so I probably still would if my kids were younger.

He's got a website here http://www.drleman.com/bio/

 

[Polycarp1]

I'm not sure why God saw fit to punish Onan in such a drastic way, but I believe his crime was to selfishly avoid getting his brother's widow pregnant so his brother wouldn't have an heir. This action also broke one of the laws governing Jewish society at that time, which stated that if a man died childless his brother should get his widow pregnant and the first child (I think) would be deemed the dead brother's heir.

When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, 6 and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying, "I have no desire to marry her," 9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, "This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house." 10 Throughout Israel his family shall be known as "the house of him whose sandal was pulled off." (Deuteronomy 25:5-12, NRSV)

Karin

This is correct. The offense for which God struck him down was not masturbation, which he did not commit, nor coitus interruptus, which he did, per se. It was the avaricious refusal to provide for Tamar by fathering a son on her.

For every Israelite and later every Jew, familiar with the Biblical inheritance pattern, Judah's patrimony would have been divided as follows, among the three sons he had to date, and including the birthright of the firstborn:
Er: 25% as son, and 25% firstborn birthright share = 50%
Onan: 25%, as second son
Shelah: 25% as third son

Onan was commanded to beget a son on Tamar, Er's widow, and this son would be counted as Er's son, and inherit his share. But, Onan reasoned, if he refuses to beget a son for Er, then the estate is divided:

Er: died before Judah without heir, no estate
Onan: 33.3% as son, plus 33.3% birthright share as eldest surviving son
Shelah: 33.3% as son

So by refusing to beget a son for Er on Tamar, Onan selfishly left her without a means of support in her old age(which her son would provide when he grew up) and increased his own share of the inheritance of Judah from 25% to 66.7%. And that was the offense for which God struck him down.

 

[herev]

Tommy,

I hope you got some rest.

Let me ask it this way. If there are boundaries for sex within a marriage, where are these boundaries defined in Scripture?

not to deny each other
and generally in the respectful treatment between a husband and wife--I know of no others

 

[Ainesis]

not to deny each other
and generally in the respectful treatment between a husband and wife--I know of no others

I believe I know what Scripture you are referencing about not denying one another. I would agree that this is a boundary set forth for married relations.

But, what do you mean by the "respectful treatment between a husband and wife" in terms of sexual relations and where is this found in Scripture?

 

[Polycarp1]

I believe I know what Scripture you are referencing about not denying one another. I would agree that this is a boundary set forth for married relations.

But, what do you mean by the "respectful treatment between a husband and wife" in terms of sexual relations and where is this found in Scripture?

Sexual relations along with every other aspect of a marriage is covered by the injunctions of Ephesians 5:

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

 

[Ainesis]

Sexual relations along with every other aspect of a marriage is covered by the injunctions of Ephesians 5:

Verse not found.

Hi Polycarp!

I think I am confused by your statement. Which verse are you speaking of?

I think Tommy was referring to I Cor. 7:5 in his first statement.

"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

 

[Polycarp1]

Hi Polycarp!

I think I am confused by your statement. Which verse are you speaking of?

I think Tommy was referring to I Cor. 7:5 in his first statement.

"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Sorry for the confusion -- my attempt to coerce the CF software into posting Ephesians 5:21-33 with the [ bible ] coding failed, and when I went to edit the post to paste in the accurate text, my computer locked up. I've edited my post to give the Scripture I wanted to show, and bolded-and-italicized the last verse, which summarizes the passage and makes herev's point clear.

 

[herev]

I believe I know what Scripture you are referencing about not denying one another. I would agree that this is a boundary set forth for married relations.

But, what do you mean by the "respectful treatment between a husband and wife" in terms of sexual relations and where is this found in Scripture?

hmmm, I don't think that it is specific to sex, I was referring generally to the treatment of husband and wife by each other and generally the respect that we are to show others.
I think somehow we've gotten confused. Your question about scriptural limitations on sex in marriage implied that I think there are some. If I said that earlier, I misspoke, what I think is that sex is limited in the Bible to marriage, not in marriage. I read Hebrews 13:4 way, way different if you see it as having restrictions on sex within marrriage.
But, given that you do--continue to help me follow the logic, how specifically do you make the logical move from whoremongers (mine says sexually immoral) in this verse to anal and oral sex within a marriage? That's where I'm lost. As has been pointed out, Sodomy is nowhere in the Bible, sodomites only once (KJV search on Blueletterbible.com) and its reference is to male/male anal sex (as I see it), so to infer from this that we are restricted to the missionary position, which some have inferred, or that we are limited to penile/vaginal intercourse seems at least a bit of a leap to me. If anything other than the sexual organs coming together is limited, what about:
fingers inserted in the vaginal canal
wrapping the fingers around the penis
I'm curious as to how far it could go, really--
would those things be forbidden in the marrige bed?
or is it just the mouth and anus that are forbidden
If it's just the mouth, what about kissing other parts of the body, but not actually inserting them in the mouth?
Maybe all that was too much said in one post, but I keep looking over the posts and Hebrews 13:4, and I simply cant' follow the logic

 

[herev]

Sexual relations along with every other aspect of a marriage is covered by the injunctions of Ephesians 5:

yeah, that was it, software not loaded yet on this computer

 

[Ainesis]

hmmm, I don't think that it is specific to sex, I was referring generally to the treatment of husband and wife by each other and generally the respect that we are to show others.

Okay, then I agree that a husband in wife should respect each other in general.

I think somehow we've gotten confused. Your question about scriptural limitations on sex in marriage implied that I think there are some. If I said that earlier, I misspoke,

Yes you did. That was sort of what led us here. You said in post #56 "I have become a firm believer through studying the history of the church's reaction towards sexuality, that God created sex to be GOOD, but certainly within bounds. The question, I think, you and I differ on, is what are the boundaries." [emphasis mine]

So, I asked where in Scripture we see those boundaries identified. Are you saying that you now believe there are no boundaries for sex in marriage?

But, given that you do--continue to help me follow the logic, how specifically do you make the logical move from whoremongers (mine says sexually immoral) in this verse to anal and oral sex within a marriage? That's where I'm lost.

Basically Tommy because I don't think that the relationship through which sin is expressed changes the act from being sinful.

This argument is actually what a number of homosexuals say. "God does not address acts of sodomy in a loving, committed relationship." Somehow the idea that this act is expressed in a consensual relationship makes it okay. I disagree.

Let me ask you this, when God says that a man should not lie with a man as he lies with a woman, is the thing forbidden here only the genders of the two involved, or is it the "act" by which they are lieing with one another?

I believe that Hebrews 13:4 exhorts us to keep marriage honorable and the bed undefiled. The only one who can commit adultery is one who is married, so clearly God is not saying that those people who are married cannot be an adulterers. God is setting forth the standards for how to have an honorable marriage and an undefiled bed: don't become whoremongers or adulterers.

You ask how whoremongers applies to anal and oral sex. I showed before how the word whoremonger here is Pornos meaning "a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire; a male prostitute; a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse."

Anyone who engages in unlawful intercourse is a whoremonger. Unlawful means illicit or not sanctioned by law. Where do we see oral and anal sex sanctioned by the laws of God? I would say that we see such behavior forbidden.

It seems to me that Hebrews 13:4 shows that those who become adulterers or commit illicit sexual acts have defiled the marriage bed and disnonored the marriage.

Maybe all that was too much said in one post, but I keep looking over the posts and Hebrews 13:4, and I simply cant' follow the logic

For me, yes that was waaaaay too much!

I don't tend to get extreme about this. Clearly we can touch each other and kiss each other and be passionate with one another. Just look at Songs of Solomon as suggested the OP. However, the issue for me is are certain sexual acts forbidden by God and if so, where are these prohibitions overturned for cases of marriage.

 

[Polycarp1]

Ainesis: In other threads, it's been my burden to point out that people are using the term "homosexuality" in two distinct meanings -- the orientation of being romantically and sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, and the sexual actions taken by some of those people. For obvious reasons, it makes a big difference which meaning you're implying when you say the word.

I think that a similar problem with sodomy exists here. Bypassing for the moment Ezekiel's description of the "iniquity of Sodom" -- which I think has some important things to say to the rest of us on Christian morality -- what God condemns regarding sex is a wide assortment of sexual practices outside marriage and for personal gratification at the expense of another. Included in that is men using men carnally, the genital-anal connection being the classic meaning of "sodomy." But the term has been borrowed into English as a legal term, meaning anal-genital and oral-genital contact by force or contrary to statutory limitations.

Certainly a married man can be a whoremonger or adulterer -- but not with his wife. By definition of those terms he is having sexual relations outside the marriage bond and in violation of his vows in committing them. Consensual sexual activity between a married couple for mutual pleasure and perhaps procreation cannot be adulterous by definition, and one would need to strain "whoremonger" to the limits of the credible to find any way to apply it to consensual marital sex.

Likewise, if "sodomy" has any accurate meaning in terms of Biblical analysis of sexual morality, it's in reference to sins committed by persons outside marriage, not to particular acts proscribed. The Bible does not even mention oral or anal sex except by implication that it would be the sexual sins for which gay people are indicted (since clearly they cannot engage in penile-vaginal sex with each other, by definition).

My conclusion in an earlier post is that God is not particularly interested in laying down a generic set of rules for sexuality within marriage -- He created us to enjoy sex within marriage, after all -- but rather that what is offensive or sinful to you individually, that you should not do, because for you it is sin. But for a couple to take pleasure in each other's bodies within a loving marital bond is not sinful but the reason for which God created us as sexual creatures. I encourage the reading of Romans 14 and the analogies which Paul draws there, as to what the proper use of Christian liberty in His service might be, and seeing how it may apply to this question.