Our source for this essay in Donald Wold's Out of Order: Homosexuality and the Bible in the Ancient Near East. Our purpose is to look at the question of what Genesis says with respect to homosexuality, and with specific focus on one passage that is often taken to refer to homosexuality, but is argued by critics to not do so (Sodom and Gommorah), and then look at a passage that is seldom understood to refer to homosexuality, but that Wold argues does so, in a condemning way.
Let's start with the one that everyone discusses:
Genesis 19:4-11 But 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: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
Common critics' points, with our answers (including from Wold):
"Know" doesn't mean sexuality, it just means, "get to know".
Critics admit that the word used (the very common yada) does at times refer euphemistically to sexual activity, but that this is seldom the case. However, Wold points out that the presence of a mixed group, as opposed to merely elders, speaks against this being any sort of "welcoming committee" (for elders had that role in an ancient village or city [82ff -- there is no evidence, Wold notes, for the claim that Lot violated hospitality by not getting permission to have a guest; no such custom is known]).
Critics also fail to consider the full semantic field: In other languages of the period, there are equivalent verbs to yada (in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Akkadian) which are clearly used with a sexual connotation. In addition, critics admit that yada means sexual intercourse in Judges 19:25, a story which scholars unhesitatingly identify as having used Gen. 19 as a literary model. It is also clear that yada is used sexually of Lot's daughters in 19:8.
Finally, the LXX translators used a Greek verb which clearly indicated that they understood yada in 19:5 in a sexual sense (hence, it is false to claim that no Jewish scholars read the text this way prior to Christianity).
They were just being inhospitable.
Of course, there is no doubt under our view that the Sodomites were also inhospitable. But the refusal to take Lot's daughters shows that the matter was likely one of social dominance: the men wished to show that they were social superiors to Lot's visitors, and they wished to accomplish this by means of the socially-dominating act of homosexuality. Moreover, the "persistence of the Sodomites does not reflect the demeanor of would-be hospitable folk." If it were, Lot would have hardly protested as he did.
