I read once that, in Arab traditions, angels are male homosexual beings…
And I read once that there are angels in the outfield. So?
I don’t think you’ll find any direct Biblical reference to the gender(s) of angels except in their incarnate state. Christian tradition predominately describes angels as spiritual beings with no physical body, but with the ability to manifest themselves to us in any form God chooses.
I thought that was just Philip Pullman? 
Jesus said; " Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:29-30
IOW the angels are sexless or neuter beings.
The Apocryphal Book Of Enoch, and the traditions that led to its creation, state that angels are male.
There are two lines in Genesis “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days.” and “The sons of heaven abandoned their duties and fell for the daughters of men.”
Those two lines led to a tradition that G-d had set a group of angels called the Watchers or the Grigori to observe, guard and instruct humanity. The Watchers left their posts, quit serving G-d, and had a bunch of sex with human women. The offspring of these unions were Nephilim, who had great powers and were giants.
OTOH
Nephilim is used that one time and never again. This makes it very hard to know what the heck it means.
“The sons of heaven” could refer to angels, but it could also refer to human scholars and priests. Leaders neglecting their duties to G-d and their people in order to satisfy their own desires is a running theme in the OT.
So later in Matthew when Jesus says
is he saying “don’t screw with me?” or what?
That’s not how Milton interprets it. 
Most uses of “know” in the Bible are literal. Some are undoubtedly euphemistic. Some may be debatable, although I personally think it’s obvious which side of the line each example falls.
Another Biblical euphemism for sex is “go in to”. For five points - which of these is euphemistic?
1 Chron 7:23
2 Chron 29:18
Well, maybe it’s anatomically possible. But I wouldn’t say it’s safe.
Would you agree that in those instances the use of “go into” is clear, but in the case of “let us know them” and Sodom, it is less so? I don’t argue that know/yadda is used ephemistically, but personally (especially in light of what G_d himself said the sin of Sodom was, I think that the literal meaning (“we want to know these strange looking men that a relative stranger has brought into our gated city [and thus potentially pose a major threat to our safety”) may have more validity than “we want to have sex with these strange looking men that etc etc.”.
Like most languages? Cite for that, if you don’t mind?
To be honest, no, I wouldn’t, and neither do the editors of the NIV, who are quite happy to “translate” the examples we’ve looked at as “have sex with” and “rape”. However - and this is, I think, the important point - our disagreement on this specific issue really shouldn’t affect our overall interpretation of Genesis 19. I agree entirely with your view that “inhospitality” (in a very extreme sense) was the sin of Sodom, and that whether it was expressed as gay rape or merely violence towards strangers doesn’t make any significant difference.
Hebrew has two words for “to know”, lehakir and lada’at. Lehakir is for knowing a person. Lada’at is for knowing a fact. The word used in this passage is derived from the latter instead of the former, and I think, that’s what gives it its sexual connotation.
Disclaimer: I’m not by any means a Biblical Hebrew scholar.
Like ‘arafa in Arabic or connaître in French.
Like ‘alima in Arabic or savoir in French. Thanks, Kyla, I learned something new about Hebrew today. How come you prefix the le- when citing Hebrew verbs? The way I studied Hebrew, we just said the plain qal forms like hakir, da‘at.
That’s a really interesting way to look at it. Like knowing for a “fact” just what are you packing in that loincloth? And do you know how to use it?
Na’am, and like ser and conocer in Spanish.
Oh, I was just giving the infinitive, which includes the le prefix. No deeper reason.
Just to clarify, I did not make up this theory on the translation. I’ve definitely read it/heard it somewhere else. I just can’t remember where.