People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

quote:

---

All a marriage is (if you dont believe in God) is some 'promise' and a legal contract between 2 people.

---

Wow, do you think you could be any more condescending and insulting?The quotes around "promise" imply that you don't think a non-religious commitment to marriage is a "real" promise.What you don't know is a lot, buster.

quote:

---

Maby you can ask every HIV sufferer who contracted the HIV through pre-marital intercourse if maby it would have been a better choice to wait until they got married. Perhaps you can ask their babies, born to this world with a life expectancy of around 6 weeks , if they are slightly peeved that their mothers chose to have more than one sexual partner, because WHY actually follow God's morals ?

---

Actually, in certain areas of the world, women in what they thought were momogomous relationships are the fastest growing group of people infected with HIV.IOW, they are being infected because their husbands are bringing the disease home with them.Oh, and about "God's morals"...If God stated that it was good and moral to rape and pilliage at will, would it be moral to do so?

quote:

---

It also considers murder, rape, stealing, swearing, gossiping, masterbation, and many many other things sinfull. Infact it consideres all sins equal! Funny but its ok to say 'stealing is wrong' , but please dont say 'homosexuality' is wrong, because there you're just a bigot.

---

The Bible also says that wearing mixed fiber clothing is an abomination, that working on the Sabbath is worthy of death by stoning, and that slavery is a good thing.

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Ever heard of Sparta ?

---

Yes.What does Sparta have to do with anything? The culture of Sparta was hardly one of gay people. While it is true that males were segregated from women and that they were encouraged to have sex with other members of the warriors, but that doesn't make them gay. By this logic, everybody in prison is gay.Was Sparta more tolerant of sex between men? Yes. They were probably even more tolerant of people that we would consider "gay." However, Sparta was not a culture of gay people.

quote:

---

Gen 19:4 "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house"

---

Precisely. You're insinuating that the entire town was filled with gay men.

quote:

---

Shall I try again ?

---

Yes. Go back to Genesis 14 and take a look at what happened before then. Notice that Sodom had gone to war and had its ass handed to it. That Lot's brother/uncle, Abram, had saved Sodom's ass and publically humiliated it. Then consider what would happen if you were in Sodom, licking your wounds from a war, and the brother/nephew of the guy who just humiliated your king were harboring strangers and refusing to identify them.

quote:

---

Deut 23:17
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

---

What does this have to do with anything? The sin of Sodom was greed, avarice, and general haughtiness. It had nothing to do with sex.

quote:

---

They wanted to have sex with the men.

---

Where on earth does this lunacy come from? Nothing in the story of Lot has anything to do with sex except for the moment when Lot offers his daughters and the people of the town refuse him and become even more outraged that Lot would think they could be dissuaded from the protection of their town by sex.

quote:

---

Sodom was notorious for its homosexuality, not its vibrant hospitality.

---

Why is it that whenever the sin of Sodom is mentioned, sex never seems to come up? Instead, its inhospitality, its refusal to assist others, its great wealth and stingy habits are always the ones that are mentioned?The translation of the phrase in Genesis is spot on: Bring them out so that we may know them. And yes, the Hebrew word "yada," translated as "know," can mean sexual contact. However, it must be phrased in a very specific way...much in the way that when English uses "know" to mean sexual contact, it must be phrased in a very specific way such as "know in the Biblical sense" or "know carnally." If I were to say to you, "Would you like to get to know my parents?" you wouldn't assume that I meant sex because I didn't phrase it to mean sex.The specific phrasing used in Genesis is used hundreds of other times in the Bible and it is never translated as meaning sex.What is so special about this one time that makes it different from all the others?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

(I *REALLY* want an answer to #2).

---

Yes.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I have added "(re: Same sex mariage)" to the otherwise vague topic title (better late than never).Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

You can't use the term "sodomite" to refer to homosexuality if we're trying to ascertain whether or not the people of Sodom were homsexuals.

---

The key is the fact that sodomite (or homosexual) is not an appropriate translation of qadesh. Qadesh is the male form of a derrogatory term usually used to mean "prostitute" or "slut" (especially with a pagan or sacreligious connotation), derrived from the name of the pagan goddess Qadesh (the goddess of sexual pleasure). In the saying about the sons of daughters of Israel, the daughters are referred to as "qadeshah", and the sons as "qadesh". It's disingenuous (to say the least) to translate qadeshah as "whore", but translate qadesh as "sodomite".------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-18-2003]

Yes, clearly the more accurate translation would be "man-whore" or "himbo." (I'm just saying that, as a result of sexist double-standards, there's a lack of good words for overly sexually promiscuous men.)

Re what you were saying earlier about the misuse of science and religion: Either can be used in an immoral manner. If somebody accepts evolution as scientific fact, he would then also accept that the stronger species must prevail through natural selection, which may lead to eugenics.Personally, I do not mind people being gay if they should so wish. The Lord forbid that homosexual marriage be legalised, on which point I agree with MrHambre, but in the event that it is (not so unlikely here in New Zealand) I would accept and show neighbourly love to married homosexual people. Such is the Lord's commandment. In fact, He often gave more attention and love, and of course forgiveness, to those who had sinned according to the Jewish law. Those sinners loved Him the most in return.

That would be a straw man. Natural seleciton isn't "the strongest survive." It's "the fittest survive." It isn't suggesting a moral code, it's observing a tautology: we define fitness in terms of those who survive.Concievably there could be a selection pressure for weaker individuals. If that were the case, guess what? The weak would survive and the strong would perish. The weak would be the fittest, because they survived.It can't lead to eugenics, because natural selection isn't a suggestion for action. It's just an observation. You can't say "one's more fit than the other, so I'm going to make sure that the one survives and the other doesn't." If they weren't going to survive on their own then they weren't the fittest. They were less fit. Eugenics is actually counter to natural selection.

Sorry as I said before I'm having very little time to spend on EVC and in general in free time, and seeing as I'm away until mid Oct on holiday, Im not going to be able to answer all questions. Considering there are about 16 different responses, its slighly tricky and would take an entire day of my time to respond to each and everyone in full. Not just that but 16 responses would mean 16 more threads you could disect , end result I dedicate every day to EVC, which I have little intention on doing, especially since I have not even browsed the evolution forum in 3 weeks.SO.. I'll have to pick and choose specifically what you wanted answered more than anything. Please try pick on this response as there clearly isn't any way I can address every response.Rrhain
***
What does Sparta have to do with anything? The culture of Sparta was hardly one of gay people. While it is true that males were segregated from women and that they were encouraged to have sex with other members of the warriors, but that doesn't make them gay. By this logic, everybody in prison is gay.
***The Spartan example was one where an entire town/civilisation could have gay/bisexual tendencies. Merely an example to CrashFrog. Sodom I suspect would have been bisexual also. Yes. Then again we can have a great debate about what constitutes being 'gay'. Perhaps some were bisexual, so then they really couldn't have been gay etc. Your assume they just wanted to identify the men in Lots house.So Lot thought the only way He could get rid of the men were to give them his virginal daughters ? Interesting man this Lot. Rather overreacted to some men just wanting to know his guests identities. Yet funny how he mentions 'whore' of women in the same sentance Why do you think the text specifies 'Whore' for women and 'sodomite' for men ? Sodomy. The very next line of text for one.King JamesGen19:5-85 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.They said 'bring them out unto us, that we may know them.' and Lot's first reply to them was I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.What would be so wicked about getting to 'know' the men ?Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.And here Lot offers his daughters for sex. Unusual behaviour surely it seems to offer one's daughters (virgins I might add) up to a crowd of men, for them to rape them and do whatever they want, just because they wanted to 'know' who his visitors were.To most Christians this is pretty clear... some newer translations have even taken the liberty. Not that I agree at all with adapting text, even if it is to state the obvious , but it might give you an idea on common Christian opinion on the matter.New American Standard Bible
and they called to Lot and said to him, " Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."New Living Translation
They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them."**Sorry I've actually just spend 1:30 hours doing research and finding verse's ect.. so I'll touch on some other posts at a later date. I find it firstly important though to confirm the fact that God sees homosexuality as a sin. I choose not to base my argument on 'anal sex' is ichy, so if we can't come to a conclusion that God considers homosexuality a sin , there is little point in me arguing against gay marriage from a Christian point of view.cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-19-2003]

Funny how zealot ignores the earlier posts of Rei and my own which debunked this statement, in order to use it against a later post by Rrhain.The answer to your question is that it was mistranslated from Hebrew. Rei specifically gave you the original word, it was Qadesh, which meant male prostitute. Someone later on translated it as sodomite.As far as the town of sodom being gay... That really is neither here nor there. While I take Rrhain's interpretation of "know" as the proper one, I didn't originally and it still made no difference.In fact, I used to believe almost all passages in the English versions which currently condemn homosexuality actually did just that, and STILL I understood the lesson of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.Just for the sake of argument let's say the people showed up to have sex. Who did they show up to have sex with, not just men, they were men who just arrived in town... strangers. And why does Lot tell them not to do anything to those strangers?"unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."They came under the shadow of Lot's roof so as not to be treated badly by the townsfolk. It should be good enough for them to realize that because they are his guests, they should not be treated according to the desires of other sodomites.You notice Lot does not say anything about it being a sin to have sex with men, nor does it seem logical that the angels would have waited for the door to be broken down to begin the slaughter, if all they needed to see was that the people of sodom were gay. No, they waited for the people of sodom to show that they would not treat strangers with hospitality, and in fact would invade the sanctity of a man's home to treat strangers badly.Other references in the Bible to sodom mention their haughtiness and poor treatment of others, not to homosexuality. To be consistent, it just makes more sense to see it as a condemnation of inhospitality to strangers. Like I said, this may indicate they were interested in sex, and it does not change the motive for why Sodom was destroyed. But why couldn't sex have been the currency for a bribe not to interrogate his guests? Why does this sound strange at all? Women were traded as sexual slaves all the time back then. I'm sorry but are you seriously suggesting that throwing his virgin daughters to a crowd ready to rape his male guests is something less than an overreaction?I've always wondered at Xtians that condemn sodom yet have no problems with the action of Lot. At least the sodomites weren't cowards willing to sacrifice their own family members (their most defenseless family members by the way) just to avoid standing up for what they believe in. Lot sickens me, as do the Xtian "heroes" of Judges that do the same thing. gag.------------------
holmes

You should try it. Its the best game ever. ANd about 500% more fun than arguing in EvC You use a keyboard and a mouse btw And yes, I've told you that I have no problem discussing any of the problems you have with translations, but then your opinion of the Bible is , and I quoteSTART QUOTE"Let me start by admitting that I see the bible as mainly a hodge-podge of earlier (and some contemporary for that time period) mythological stories. Some of course are based on historic realities, even if biased accounts of them, but other passages much less real.The mythic portions I believe to be allegories, or perhaps better termed "fables" or "teachings" rather than literal accounts. I assume most of you will be with me up to this point. "END QUOTESo, no offense, but you've stated your opinion, so should I really care about your further opinion of textual translations ? You dont believe, its your choice. Honestly I respect you for atleast admitting your views, but the 'Religious scholars' disagreeing honestly holds little ground with me. Its sortof common knowlege, hence the highest child rape figures in the world. I thought your point was that HIV had no cause and effect model ?'The fact that it requires slightly greater physical contact than other communicable illnesses'

quote:

---

Too bad about the doctors and patients who pass HIV onto each other, or people that get infected blood, or share dirty needles, or just plain helped someone out that was bleeding and had cuts on their hands themselves. These people never had sex at all. God must hate all of them bastards too, huh?

---

My father , a pretty busy surgeon has managed to be pricked by an HIV infected needle on 2 occasions. It happens actually VERY often in medicine and very seldom do doctors get infected. My sister, a GP has had the same happen to her. She has also had an HIV infected child vomit blood into her eyes. They are both clean of HIV. If you choose to go the 'blood transfusion' route, I might point out to you that Jehova's Witnesse's for one choose not to have blood transfusions.My argument is one of'If you cross the road without looking both ways for oncoming traffic, you are more likely to be hit by a car'.Your argument is one of 'Well, I know plenty of men that never look both ways and are perfectly fine, what about those that DO look and still some speeding car hits it ? 'Have a read, just why people in South Africa are infected with HIV.http://www.bbriefings.com/...lth03_1/publication/dummett.pdf Hmm, I thought I said 'pretty much immune', no capitalisation. Actually the reason Dahmer attempted to perform labotomies was because he didn't particularly liked killing his lovers. So yeah, he did have some personal 'morals' . Hehe, sorry don't know any Cliff I have holmes, on many occasions. Indeed that is how I read the Bible. But for interest sake Holmes, it is common knowlege amoungst Christians that unless you actively seek God, you will not find him.1 Cor 2 9-16 But then again even IF the earlier versions were precisely translated, it wouldn't make a difference, afterall I see the bible as mainly a hodge-podge of earlier (and some contemporary for that time period) mythological stories.Sorry if I came across as harsh holmes, but I've just spent another hour replying to you in detail, when in reality there is little point. I feel little need arguing over biblical text, especially when its too easy to say 'its all bollox' in any case or 'where is your proof'.Either case, if you realy want to discuss the text with an open mind, I'll be more than happy to spend time with you when I come back in Oct.Stay wellZealot

Good post holmes. I really was planning on leaving after my last post, but I'll take time to replay as you brought up some decent points. Like I said.. have a look at how many posts I have to answer.. We can well assume that Sodom was full of gay prostitutes. Perhaps that was its trade, and that would also go well into the Lot saying"unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."In other words, "These men have not come for sex, they are my guests", but then that would mean that the men did indeed want to have sex with them, as I've shown. Nope, its pretty clear they were gay, but you can choose to believe otherwise. Quite possibly because Lot wanted to tell them 'these men are not gay and didn't come here for sex'. Good point, however read the whole text. The angels went to Lot's house to tell him that they were planning on destroying Sodom and that he and his family had to leave. It had already been decided by the Lord. If Sodom was not renound for respecting people's hospitality, then Lot surely would not have tried to appeal to them on this issue ? So no, it has nothing to do with Sodomites being 'rude' to guests.19:13
For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. A. The precise reason Lot traded his virginal daughters was because homosexuality was 'unclean' and an abomination. It is illustrated by the fact that he would rather sacrifise his virginal daughters, than have his guests (whom he's only known 1 day) be sodomised. Yes, I do. Do you consider being sodomised slighly worst than being interrogated ? Because homosexuality is a sin and in those times an abomination. Lot was a rightious man, thus what he did was not a sin. Let me ask you, if you had to choose, would you rather have your son sodomised or your daughter raped ? I know its crass, but think about it.Lot did not trade his daughters in for his guest's comfort. It was his guests being raped or his daughters. Once you realise that you might understand his actions as less harsh.

Sorry to reply when I know you won't answer for a bit, but I might as well reply now. You can feel free to wait till October to reply. I should be here. You are incorrect. The angels had been sent to check Sodom out and see if it was worthy to be saved from wrath. If not, then it would be destroyed.This is why it seems strange that the angels would not have simply started the slaughter as soon as the town turned out en masse to have sex with them, if being gay was the reason for their destruction.It only makes sense for them to wait until the town smashed in the door, if the line being crossed was being bad neighbors and the illtreatment of strangers.BTW, since I originally thought they did come for sex (Rrhain only recently giving a convincing argument otherwise) I am willing to concede that they came for sex. We can leave out whether they were gay or not for purposes of argument (between you and I).This does not diminish the fact of what evidence was used by the angels to pronounce God's judgement, and the fact that all other references to Sodom in the Bible is regards its inhospitability to others. Other than "sodomite" which is not a direct translation from the Hebrew anyway, I am willing to accept any evidence to the contrary. I am very confident you will find no reference to Sodom being wicked simply because of homosexuality. Wouldn't that be Lot trying to give them one last chance?After all isn't that what he was doing according to your own argument? If they were renowned for being gay, why would he offer his daughters? That wouldn't make sense at all. No. Have you seen the "interrogation techniques" of many countries? Often it can include sodomy with large, sharp, and burning hot metal objects.Then again, I would consider throwing daughters to a mob as a bribe to protect guests an overreaction (and an extremely cowardly one at that) no matter what the intended action was for my guests. That was what I was trying to get at.Don't you think throwing virginal daughters is a rather cowardly overreaction to either circumstance? Can't you think of some more just alternatives?Oh maybe not... Being bisexual I find both situations equally repulsive.But this was not the situation Lot was faced with. Would you rather have a mob rape some strangers that came to speak to you, or your virgin daughters?And that is to give him some weird inability to make other more sane decisions, like offering neither and defending himself and his family.Thankfully this should give you insight into what the message of this passage was about. Strangers were supposed to be treated with more respect than one's own family. Your second sentence, contradicts the first. Your third sentence makes no sense to me at all. Again, answer the question above. You'd really toss your daughters to a raping mob? That has to be the most coldbloodedand cowardly maneuvers I have ever heard of.ON ANOTHER TOPIC---In a previous reply to another post of mine you discounted my arguments about errant English translations, due to my opinion about the content of scripture in general.This is fallacious.One does not have to believe William Shakespeare wrote all of his stories without reference to earlier works, to point out that a Spanish translation includes a mistaken translation of certain words or phrases.Neither does believing William Shakespeare was not a singular author, discredit the work of Literary Scholars one might reference when talking about a mistaken translation.REGARDLESS of where I think the stories of the Bible came from, I can certainly point out that BIBLICAL SCHOLARS (and this includes people who don't share my view of where the stories came from) who read both English and Hebrew readily point out mistranslations.Your unwillingness to simply check it out makes me believe you want to stay in ignorance, lest your current worldview get shaken up. If not this, why do you resist? Why does your faith not allow you to get someone who knows Hebrew to tell you whether the English translation is accurate or not with reference to the specific words used in the passage?And on HIV... your assertion that getting married and staying faithful in any way grants you "immunity", even a slight "immunity" is ludicrous.The only thing you are talking about is limiting chances of contact with the virus. I totally agree that limiting contact to only those that are HIV negative increases your chances of not contracting HIV to almost infinity. This has NOTHING to do with "immunity" which involves resistance to infection after contact.What you refused to acknowledge is that people can acquire HIV in many other ways than sex outside of marriage, and that "sex outside of marriage" is not the prime vector. Everyone could get divorced right now and the rates would not suddenly jump up.There is no "cause and effect" at all, relating to homosexuality or unmarried sex. That would mean unmarried or homosexual sex acts would result in HIV infection where no HIV infection previously existed.HIV will travel as it always has, through vectors that involve contact with infected body fluids.You also failed to acknowledge that your sister and dad are in much much more dangerous positions of contracting HIV, than a guy or girl sucking off or (even more safe) masturbating countless random partners they are not married to.According to your own morality formula then, God hates doctors who help people more than people engaging in oral or manual sex outside of wedlock. As Rei and schraf have pointed out this makes God heavily pro-lesbian.The most dangerous activity and highest transmission vector has been sharing dirty needles and unprotected sexual activity which those who engage in that practice. Heterosexuality at one point became a greater vector than homosexuality, though that may have slipped back recently. Marriage has to date not been shown to prevent transmission.God indeed works in mysterious ways, when he wipes out innocent people with no connection to his intended target.Along those lines you have still failed to address the "message" elderly outdoor enthusiasts are supposed to be learning from West Nile Virus. Why is God punishing them?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-19-2003]

defenderofthefaith writes:

quote:

---

If somebody accepts evolution as scientific fact, he would then also accept that the stronger species must prevail through natural selection

---

Incorrect. There is no definition of "strongest" in evolution. Instead, evolution understands about those that manage to live long enough to reproduce. If the "weak" ones are the ones that stay home because they are "too scared" to venture out, and thus don't get killed in the rock slide that fell upon those that were "strong" and "brave," then they're the ones that manage to reproduce and those are the genes that carried on to the next generation.

quote:

---

Personally, I do not mind people being gay if they should so wish.

---

What if it isn't a wish?

quote:

---

The Lord forbid that homosexual marriage be legalised

---

Really? Where? I've been looking through the Bible and I can't find a single statement about same-sex marriage anywhere in it. In fact, Jesus says absolutely nothing about same-sex romantic relationships in either direction but is completely silent about the subject. Apparently the one closest to god didn't seem to think it merited attention.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!