From wikipedia:

Rictor Norton views classical Jewish texts as stressing the cruelty and lack of hospitality of the inhabitants of Sodom to the "stranger".[23] The Jewish Encyclopedia has information on the importance of hospitality to the Jewish people.[24] The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.[25] One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One major crime done to strangers was almost identical to that of Procrustes in Greek mythology. This would be the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up (indeed, in Hebrew andYiddish, the corresponding term for a Procrustean bed is a "Sodom bed").

In another incident, Eliezer, Abraham's servant, went to visit Lot in Sodom and got in a dispute with a Sodomite over a beggar, and was hit in the forehead with a stone, making him bleed. The Sodomite demanded Eliezer pay him for the service of bloodletting, and a Sodomite judge sided with the Sodomite. Eliezer then struck the judge in the forehead with a stone and asked the judge to pay the Sodomite.

The Talmud and the book of Jasher also recount two incidents of a young girl (one involved Lot's daughter Paltith) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness, they burned Paltith and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was eaten by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a.) It is this gruesome event, and her scream in particular, the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city's destruction: "So[26] said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see...'"[Gen 18:20-21]

A modern orthodox position is one that holds, "The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to 'know' the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of 'sodomy'."[27]

The scholar and activist Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."[28] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1-11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1-11] and Ezekiel 16:49-50,[Ezekiel 16:49-50] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated at "taboo".[29]

--------------------------------

Meanwhile, thus, whatever, in the bible it is okay to be homosexual as long as one does not have sex with angels...:

The sin that Jude condemns is humans having sex with or attempting to have sex with angels. He does not mention or condemn homosexuals and lesbians. Isn't that interesting? Yet many anti-gay Christians take the verses out of context to condemn gays and lesbians. They assert (falsely) that v. 7 is a negative attack on lesbian women and gay men.

That's interesting because he uses the Greek word, heteras, (meaning different) from which we get our English word, heterosexual, instead of the Greek word, homoios, (meaning same) from which we get our English word, homosexual.

The careful choice of words indicates that the point at issue with God is not homosexuality. The sin that Jude condemns is humans attempting to have sex with angels. The sin was attempting to have sex with someone too different, heteras.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jude.html

When Jesus died he had about 100 followers. Some 20 years after Jesus’s death, Paul began to turn his small Jewish cult into one open to Gentiles as well as Jews. Jesus was refashioned as a celibate. Judging by his fellow holy men who were also raising people from the dead, the historical Jesus was probably married. He became a celibate only after his death. This was a way – Paul’s way – of creating a distinctive religious brand. Christianity needed to define itself against paganism: one way of doing that was by bringing sex into the religious/moral realm, by making it a moral problem and sanctifying sexual denial.

And the reason that most Christians can accept this ever-changing Jesus, while most Muslims find any reinterpretation of Mohamed utterly intolerable, is, I believe, because of the two religions’ very different attitudes to their respective sacred texts.

Of all the “religions of the book”, Islam treats its sacred text as outside the pressures of history. It was revealed by the Angel Gabriel to Mohamed over a period of 23 years. Mohamed the living man is important only as the mouthpiece of the text itself which comes from God. The Koran is outside the human earthly realm. For Christians, the Bible is a sacred text, revealing the word of God but, crucially, it is revealed through the insights of particularly spiritually gifted men. The Bible is human as well as sacred. That means it can be fallible and so can be subject to interpretation. But as the Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol says, “If you say the Koran is a human text, then you cease to be Muslim.”

In the 19th century, geologists and philologists began to undermine the historicity of Christianity. Philologists discovered contradictions and anomalies in the Bible. Geologists found that they could not reconcile their discoveries about the origins of the world with the biblical version. “If only the geologists would leave me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses,” wrote the agonised John Ruskin.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-a-sacred-text-is-not-so-much-the-word-of-god-as-the-word-of-man-8163653.html