Thanks for the new example; as usual, the wiki-style shorthand of the Talmud is easily misunderstood by casual inspection.

The paragraph in question is Sanhedrin 58b:14-16. First note that what the Bible calls adulterating (na'af, moichao) is limited to natural intercourse with another man's wife, while sodomy is classified by the Bible not as adultery but as fornicating (zanah, porneuo). The passage is not about adulteration of the womb at all, which is ruled out by all speakers, as note 4 says, "Guilt [is incurred] for natural ... intercourse." The dispute is only about "unnatural" relations, meaning (heterosexual) sodomy.

In one variant text (note 3), Raba is put as saying that Jews are permitted to sodomize their wives, but it is not clear he said this in the original text; in the link I gave, the same thought is a gloss by a later editor. However, in the main text, Raba's argument is that the heathen (H5237, stranger) is not liable for adultery under Gen. 2:24 simply by sodomizing another man's wife, with the logic being that that cannot impregnate her. Since the passage is not about the punishment for sodomy but only about the punishment for adultery, it's another example of saying something is inapplicable in a minor scope and readers mistakenly inferring it's inapplicable in a much wider scope than intended.

Meanwhile, Eleazar and Hanina give the straightforward stricter opinion that sodomy with any woman incurs guilt according to Gen. 2:24. There is no majority ruling in the text on either side, so it merely advises that rabbis differed over this ruling and gives both sides, not that a binding ruling was made.

In general, this is in a section about the laws of Noah (not those of Moses), and so it should be remembered that (1) Jews were not permitted to enforce the laws of Noah upon others but left that to courts set up by the Gentiles, so questions about Jews not judging Gentiles are often intended as referrals to the Gentiles to answer for themselves in their own courts; (2) whether or not sodomy was regarded as permitted under the laws of Noah, it was clearly not permitted under the laws of Moses or under the Talmud as applied to Jews; (3) the actual opinion here as to Noah is only the words of one rabbi, quoted as contrasting and not as binding, and is not to be read as authoritative.

TLDR: For the title to be correct it would need to say something like "Raba allows the heathen unnatural intercourse [sodomy] with his neighbor's wife", very different from OP. However, Raba probably meant it wasn't a case for Jewish courts to hear.

If we are judging Raba for allowing Jews to sodomize their wives (if occasional and not to avoid conception) and using that to extend liberality to the Gentiles, then we should judge Christian leaders who teach the same thing by arguing the marriage bed permits marital sodomy. The fact is that the rabbinical position of that day is once again far ahead of the Roman position of allowing men full property rights over their wives' bodies, even unto death, and the developing Christian position did not have the feature of regulating marital intercourse more fully for quite some time either. So, once again, the Talmud is to be placed properly in the development of morality, neither too leniently nor too strictly.

Ironically the jews are right here - the only way to have sex is the natural intercourse between a man and a woman. Any other perversion like sodomy doesn't qualify as sex as it can't lead to reproduction. This is the Christian position also.

Just one comment from the bot u/DresdenFirebomber?

Hey, where is your shill buddy JosephMalta?

You seem to infest OP's comment section, but so little activity from you now...

Sounds like it says that the wife has a duty to you, not the man she sleeps with. Which is logical.