I'm suggesting that "rape" is "violent and hostile" to strangers.
Except that Pashtun tribesmen protected Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, at the risk of their own and their families' lives from the Taliban.
Can you point me to the part where the Taliban soldiers wanted to rape Marcus Luttrell, and where the Pashtun tribesmen offered up their daughters instead? I couldn't find that part in the public record.
And finally, "false dichotomy" be damned: I'm talking about real history here. The Bible says that "all" the men in Sodom were gay rapists. Do you honestly believe a human civilization could have existed in any point in human history where the entire male population consisted of homosexual rapists?
It appeared that you wanted to exclude homosexual rape from the reasons that Sodom was destroyed and replace it with 'violence' and 'hostility to strangers'. Glad to see you acknowledge that the 'violent' and 'hostile to strangers' description is inclusive and therefore irrelevant for excluding homosexuality as the reason that Sodom was destroyed.
"Can you point me to the part where the Taliban soldiers wanted to rape Marcus Luttrell, and where the Pashtun tribesmen offered up their daughters instead? I couldn't find that part in the public record."
Can you point me to the part where offering your life and your families' lives in defense of a guest is any less valuable?
"And finally, "false dichotomy" be damned: I'm talking about real history here."
Well of course you want the fallacy of the false dichotomy to be damned. It doesn't allow you to present a scenario of your own making as the only acceptable alternative.
"The Bible says that "all" the men in Sodom were gay rapists."
No it doesn't. You are defining it as such in order to commit the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
"Do you honestly believe a human civilization could have existed in any point in human history where the entire male population consisted of homosexual rapists?"
Again, the fallacy of the false dichotomy is noted.