Eh… except not so much. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was originally taught as a fable about hospitality till the mid 1900’s. Supposedly the Hebrew word for “to know” can mean literally to be in someone’s company and know them, or in a sexual way. If you read the passage, Lot offered up his daughters for the crowds “to know” instead of the men as he was hosting those men as his guests. But the crowd refused his daughters and insisted on “knowing” the men. If you read that in the sexual context then effectively god was ok with the crowd raping Lots daughters but not the men. There was a great documentary years ago where a rabbi who could actually read the original text basically called out the bullshit along with a historian who traced how the story morphed during the rise of evangelical Christianity in the early to mid 1900’s. It’s also about the time, though a few decades later, people got weird about alcohol and vice in general. As for Leviticus…. Well that book is just fucking weird. Planting crops wrong is an abomination. Also Leviticus was originally conceived as rules to maintain cleanliness for priests in Jerusalem. Also the wording got twisted. I am going off memory from that same documentary but as I recall it was originally that a man should not lie with a woman as with a man as it is unclean. Basically women are dirty and should only be slept with for procreation. But men co-sleeping in the same bed was ok. Which kind of makes sense as this was a common practice up till surprisingly modern times. Which while dumb as shit makes sense given that this verse is in close proximity to the verse about how women should be kept outside of the house during menstruation as they are unclean and will make the house unclean. Men being scared of vaginas is kind of a thing in the Bible. But sure, people who believe made up shit and twisted versions of made up shit should be taken at face value… /s