On the other hand, from the perspective that Jude 7 is actually an anti-parallel to the marriage texts, the emphasis is on having sex with a person that is not bone your bone, and flesh of your flesh, therefore, different flesh. In this reading of Jude 7, this passage is an implied support of relationships based on commitment and faithfulness, condemning only the behavior of having sex with whomever one chooses, whenever one wants (going after different flesh),and has nothing to do with homosexuality. This reading of the text is more faithful to the original Genesis 19 account, which focuses not on the homosexual aspect of the story, but on the promiscuity and aggresive nature of the mobs demand to rape the angels. 

As for Genesis 19 itself, I believe the new reading of the Jude passage clearly tells us what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was, and why God's wrath was poured out on it it (Ezekiel 16:49 brings in a different emphasis on the sin of Sodom, but again clearly specifying the nature of the sin, of which homosexuality is not part of that description). The inhabitants made a habit of roaming around engaging in orgies, gang-rape, whatever and whenever they wanted, with no ideals or attempts at the kinds of relationships God intended for humans to have, namely relationships based on intimacy with each other, grounded in intimacy with God. 

I want to make it clear, because of posts on my message board from those who disagree with me, that there is no reason to believe that the incident mentioned in Genesis 18-19 was a one time event. I agree with those who rightly point out that this kind of behavior was probably common. But when I claim that this passage does not relate to specifically homosexuality because of the implication of gang-rape, I do not believe that Sodom was destroyed because of this one event, as some have assumed I believe. They are right in stating that God intended in chapter 18, before the description of Lot's story, to destroy the two cities. Again, they rightly state that it was not the events in chapter 19 that call for the cities' destruction. It is because of their general habit of engaging in such behaviors that cause their destruction. However, those same people also seem to assume that the events prior to the Lot account were homosexual, and it is because of those accounts that Sodom is destroyed. This assumption is entirely unwarranted. There is no specific indication (other than the Jude passage) of what the cities' sins were that caused them to be destroyed.
 

In my attempt to integrate these passages with my view of homosexuality (and vice-versa), I have been forced to put them in the category of OT law which no longer have applicability to our culture. This is rarely an attractive option for an Evangelical. However, it is not unheard of, and before one rejects this argument arbitrarily, one must deal with the reality that Evangelicals do in fact reject parts of the OT. The key is having an epistemologically sound reason for doing so. In this case, I follow three lines of reasoning: 

First, I rely somewhat on the usage of the word tow'ebah, with the assumption that these behaviors make one ritualistically unclean. The OT life was characterized by the constant struggle to be clean. There are chapters and chapters in Leviticus designed to make sure that God's people were clean. The pronouncements against contact with blood, with disease, with certain foods, etc., were attempts to make one clean before God. Of the "Law" found in the OT, it can be classified into three categories: moral, social and ritualistic. Moral codes and social codes seem proscriptive for most cultures, in that they tend to fulfill the law of love explicated in the NT. Such laws as don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't worship other Gods, etc. fall into these categories. They limit general relationship behaviors, and criminal behaviors. Other behaviors, specifically cleanliness behaviors, seem to have been overturned in the NT, given that Jesus has taken all uncleanness onto Himself, thus our only uncleanness comes from our heart, not from external things. For example, in Leviticus 11.7, the Jews are prohibited from eating pork because it is unclean. However, in Peter's dream in Acts 10, God tells Peter that unclean food has now been made clean. Similarly, with lepers, who were unclean and could make another person unclean by touching thus were to be kept out of the city, Jesus welcomed them and touched them. In both Leviticus 18 and 20 we have another reason to believe that these sex acts made one ritually unclean, and were not meant for "social" Law. In Leviticus 18:19, and 20:18 a man is prohibited from having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle, which in Leviticus 15:33 we are told specifically that both the woman and the man lying with her are ritualistically unclean (tame'). To make this point exceedingly clear, in Leviticus 15.2-5, we are given cleanliness codes for women having undergone childbirth. Women given birth to a son is to be unclean for 7 days. However, women given birth to a daughter are to be unclean for 66 days. During these times, she could not participate in religious festivals or be touched by anyone. It is clear that there are things in the OT that Evangelicals would never consider following, and most of these fall under the Laws of Uncleanness category. It is my contention that, given the clear and conspicuous usage of tow'ebah in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, that uncleanness is the intention. 

So, I conclude from the use of tow'ebah here, that in these verses the behaviors are specifically designed to delineate behaviors which make one ritualistically unclean. The one counter-argument that can be raised against this is that, if we say that each of these behaviors are now "clean" and we can engage in them then we are supporting incest and bestiality. But this is not necessarily the case. While these particular chapters are designed to delineate ritualistic uncleanness, that doesn't mean that any of these activities can't be classified under another branch of law. For example, bestiality is mentioned in two other passages other than in Leviticus (Ex 22.19, , and Dt 27.21), as is incest. Homosexuality, however, is never mentioned outside of these passages, other than those passages mentioned earlier in this Addendum, none of which refer to homosexuality in loving committed relationships. Finally, this position is not a new one, but was the position of the early church. Both Eusebius of Ceasaria, and the Apostolic Constitutions state that the uncleanness that is derived from this behavior is ritual, not moral (Boswell (1980), pg. 102). 

Second, the contention of the anti-gay groups, is that these verses deal with homosexuality in general. However, these verses deal specifically with male-male sexual relations. There is only one passage in all of Scripture which deals with lesbianism, and that is in Romans 1. So if one wants to call lesbianism sinful, then one must necessarily use that passage, and that passage alone. It is not being faithful to the Leviticus texts to apply them to lesbians. The usage here is not a single Hebrew word or idiom which can refer to any sex acts between the same gender. Rather, the texts clearly say "if a man lies with a man." There is no leeway in these texts to include females, anymore than there is leeway to switch the genders specified in the bestiality texts of 20:15-16. This is important, because it does not seem consistent to condemn male homosexuality and not female homosexuality, if the point of condemning homosexuality is because it is "unnatural." This condemnation of only male homosexuality in these passages leads me to look for a deeper intention behind the condemnation, other than the broad condemnation of all homosexuality. While this deeper intention may or may not be related to tow'ebah as outlined above, it certainly indicates to me that homosexuality in general is not what is being prohibited. 

Finally, I must return to the relationship between the OT Law and the NT. As a group, Evangelicals struggle very hard to retain an integrity of the Scriptures. Without this, then we are left to pick and choose Scriptures that we like, throwing out those we don't like. This is epistemologically unsound, and therefore theologically unwise. But in our attempts to do this, we have often set up blinders that prevent us from seeing outside of our traditions. Homosexuality is one of them. We point such OT passages as mentioned above to prove our point. We follow this up by quoting that "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law." However, when we do that, we become hypocrites. Below are many things that Evangelicals would probably never support, yet are found clearly in the OT Law. Can we honestly reject these, yet absolutely accept Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? I don't think so. I think we need to re-think our position on these OT verses, and stick to things we know are foundational to fulfilling the Two Primary Laws defined by Love. When we devote so much time to hating homosexuality, we are failing to fulfill the Laws of Love. 

This is a list of OT commands (listed only from Exodus-Deuteronomy) that most Evangelicals would have a hard time following or supporting.  The purpose is not to show the irrelevancy of the OT. On the contrary, there is an incredible harmony between the OT and NT, and there is much that the OT teaches us about God. However, the OT is much abused by people who claim that all of the OT laws must be kept (at least those that they deem still valid, such as the alleged laws against homosexuality), but at the same time push many of the following laws under the table. There are many laws not listed that we would not keep, such as sacrificial laws, or priestly laws. I have not included these because most Christians agree that Jesus took those laws on himself, and therefore are not ours to fulfill. Finally, there may be some, or even many of the following laws that individual groups may still want to follow, thus claim that my argument is invalid. However, for that to be true, then every law must be followed, not just some or most. The purpose, again, is to point out that care must be taken when referring back to OT law to support claims of sinfulness. A much better method would be to compare an action against the Law of loving God, and the Law of loving your neighbor as yourself, along with the other guidelines we are given in the New Testament.
Exodus: 21.17,21 23.12,14-18  34.12,18-23	Numbers: 5.2,12-30  15.32-38 19.11-16 30.10-15	Deuteronomy: 6.6,8-9  7.2  13.6-10,12-16  14.3-19  15.1,16-17,19-20  17.2-12  21.1-9,10-11,18-21 22.9-24,27-29 23.3,10  25.5-12	Leviticus: 5.2-3  ch 12-14, 15 19.23-25, 27 20.10-18, 17  ch 23-24
Here are some examples of the above verses, which one must also demand be followed if one is going to demand that the alleged commands against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 & 20 be followed:   Lev 19:27  Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.   Ex 21:17  Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.  Num 19:13  Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean; his uncleanness remains on him.  Dt 22: 9-12  Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.   Dt 22:28-29  If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.  Num 15:32-38  While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel.