Take care when using Bible as a sexual allegory
Observer (Write Back, December 31) did well to object to "the rather flippant comments from Keith Hugo" (Write Back, December 17).
Like Observer, I would have expected someone "who calls himself Canon" to have had a better knowledge of scripture.
In particular, his claim that "the intended victims in Sodom were angels, which makes it irrelevant to any discussion about same-sex human relations" is incorrect.
The people of Sodom were clearly not aware that Lot's visitors were angels, since they refer to them specifically as men (Genesis 19:5) and explicitly demand to "know" them - a standard euphemism for sexual relations.
Why should we take it for granted that two men living together are only doing so in order to indulge in sexual relations?
I would prefer to think that their motive is to share the exorbitant cost of housing.
'Honi soit qui mal y pense [Shameful is he who thinks evil (of others)]'
MARTIN D STERN
Salford, Greater Manchester