Actually, this sexual teaching was taught by Pastor Jack Hayford, now the president of the Foursquare Church International formerly of The Church on the Way in L.A. Hayford's position on it was the same as Christ's toward the unmarried eunuchs -- "for whoever can accept this, accept it." Maybe it's on his website. It bugged some celeb church goers I knew, too. (Perhaps "bugged" is the wrong choice of words... )
Well, the first scripture that comes to mind is the one in Romans about how "women gave up what was natural intercourse for what was unnatural." Hayford's attitude was that you would not subject your spouse to anything that would put your body on a physical level in any way debasing -- but face to face as equals, looking into each other's souls. I hope I don't have to spell out the logistics of what he was talking about.
I recall he talked about the sin of Onan, too, which was masturbation. Point is that the Lord, who calls us to respect our bodies as the living temples of the Holy Spirit, looks upon our hearts even during sex. Who we are and what we think about and -- most importantly -- what we project upon our spouses with whom we are "one body" is extremely important to Christ.
The Word about it being a "narrow path" and that the Lord will save a "remnant" of His washed clean virgins come to mind in this day and age of attenuated Sodom and Gomorrah.
I agree with Hayford -- let who accept it who will -- but I can never get over the revulsion I experienced as a young teen when the older brother of a friend of mine first showed me a photo of oral sex -- (he was gay and is dead now of AIDS) -- it just seemed so unclean to put your mouth where any kind of excrement might have been.
And another scripture is how the Lord commanded Moses I think to bury human excrement in a way that made things okay for God's spirit to be around -- because the excrement was ritualistically 'unclean". It is interesting to me that the devil is often called "an unclean spirit".
In any case -- I think it is a matter of whoever can accept it should -- but for me it is difficult to imagine the Holy One of Israel blessing sodomy. And it was illegal for heterosexuals to have oral or anal sex in this country until the last generation. Reading the script for the upcoming film KIN SEY recently, the writer noted that a man was put in jail for cunnilingus on his own wife in the late 1930's.
The point being for Dobson's article is that for prayerful intercession on the part of Christians for the upholding of marriage and family values -- God needs people to take a personal stand in their own lives for holiness in order for there to be any efficacious prayer in the spiritual realm.
Do a concordance search on the meaning of an intercessor or intercession -- that our prayers have authority only when we are ourselves pure -- and the problem of sodomy will make sense.
As for the Song of Solomon, suckling of breasts and other romantic allusions somehow aren't the same thing. God calls us to not be of this Sodomic culture -- are we already like Lot, so desensitized to sexual purity that we would offer up our daughters to appease the sexual lusts of the men at his door who wanted to have sex with the angel that was visiting him?
Onan's crime was much more specific. IIRC, Mosaic law required that if the eldest son of a family died married but childless, the next-eldest son was required either to try to impregnate the widow (with any resulting child being declared to have been fathered by the deceased, and thus being named heir of the family's estate) or publicly refuse to do so.
Onan was commanded by God to impregnate his brother's widow as the law demanded. He had sex with her, but withdrew before ejaculation so as to avoid impregnating her. His crime was not masturbation (he didn't), nor was it his refusal to have a child of his own (for any child he conceived would not have been his own). Rather, his crime was his secret refusal to give his brother an heir.
To put it another way, Onan was required by God and by law to put his seed to a particular use. That destroying seed which is slated for a particular use is a crime does not mean all 'spilling of seed' is a crime. The general rule is not implied by the highly-specific example.