[Jorge]

It's worth stressing here, then, that from the very beginning, sodomy and homosexuality were two categorically separate things. The correct definition of sodomy - then and now - is simply non-procreative sex, whether practised by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Again, I believe he is denying the Biblical evidence connecting the term sodomy to homosexuality.

We saw the example of the men of Sodom at Lott's door, demanding the "men" inside for homosexual purposes.

Then we see in Jude 1:7 (KJV) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after *strange flesh,* are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Going after "strange flesh" is presented as "pursued unnatural lust" in the NRSV.
And "unnatural" in reference to sexual behavior is used in Romans to describe homosexuality.

It indicates sexual lust for something "other than" the normal or natural object.

When we add to this the reference of Sodom's homosexuality, called "wicked" by Lot immediately before God destroys Sodom ....Well the idea that there is not real connection between the term sodomy and homosexuality is simply another example of gay theology trying to redefine the scriptures to suit their agenda.

[POGIFFMOO]

Apparently Andrew Sullivan would not be satisfied unless the bible was more graphic and explicit in it's descriptions so he could understand it better. Bet there's a lot of other sections he has that same problem with.