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

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

Just curious, but what percentage of the gay population compared to percentage of the hetrosexual population have been infected with HIV ?

---

Unknown as there is no good assessment of the number of gay people compared to straight people. One problem is that not all people who have sex with people of their own sex consider themselves "gay." In many cultures, when two man have sex, the one on the bottom is the "gay" one but the one on top is not.That's why the CDC and WHO and such simply refer to it as "men-who-have-sex-with-men" or "MSM."Thus, we have no real idea how many gay people have HIV compared to straight people.By the way, you need to try harder. I wasn't at your site more than 5 minutes and I found the following info:42 million people worldwide have HIV of which only 4,705,000 live in areas where men-who-have-sex-with-men are considered a significant vector. So even if we make the absolutely unwarranted assumption that all the people who have HIV in those areas are gay men, that means only about 11% of the world population of HIV-infected people got it from having gay sex.And by the way...half of the total of the 42 million who have HIV are women. They're getting it from somebody....------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Take any 2 virgin women in Sub Sahara Africa, have 1 woman have intercourse with 20 men, and the other woman with 1 man, and ask a statistician who is more likely to contract HIV.

---

Well, my degree is Applied Mathematics and not Statistics, but I do know a bit about it.First question: Do the men have HIV?If none of them have HIV, then it doesn't matter how much sex they have with each other...they will never, ever transmit HIV to each other since none of them have it. Sex does not create HIV.If they all have it, then they all stand a pretty good chance of infecting the woman since she's always with an infected partner.Now, if we take the position that all of the men are identical and that each has a X chance of being HIV positive, then yes, the woman who has sex with more men more likely to contract HIV than the woman who only sticks with one.But that sorta misses the point, though: There is more to avoiding contracting HIV than just sticking with one person. Even if you stick to just one person, you're going to have to be careful.

quote:

---

I'm quite curious, but just how many people choose to abstain from penetrative sex, and focus on oral sex/handjobs ?

---

Well, at least in the West, that'd be most people.Oral sex is the most common form of sex.In fact, a lot of people don't even really consider it sex. There are plenty of kids who, when asked if they're virgins, will say yes but when you press them, you find that they have had oral sex.They don't see any contradiction.

quote:

---

However, you seem to fail to understand that being able to read the Bible in Hebrew OR Greek has no impact on my salvation as a Christian.

---

Not directly, no. I doubt god cares about what languages you can comprehend.However, when it comes to reading the manual about how to go about achieving salvation, it becomes a bit of a lynchpin.You see, if you trust someone else to translate the manual for you, then you are putting your soul into someone else's hands. What makes you think your translation is accurate? Wouldn't it be better to take a look at the Hebrew and Greek to make sure?

quote:

---

I cant read Hebrew

---

What makes you think the rest of us can't?

quote:

---

Seeing as I actually despise the concept of people not being able to make it into the kingdom of God and as I actually do have a couple of friends that are gay/bisexual

---

Oh, that must be uncomfortable."Hey, Joe! Nice to see ya...you're going to hell, you know?"------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

More specifically, Where the Ratio of Homosexual(men) HIV rates are vs Heterosexual cases of HIV ?

---

There aren't any.People who track HIV do not track people as "homosexual."Question: Does the fact that people of the same sex have sex in prison mean that all the people in prison are gay?You see, given the fact that just because people of the same sex are having sex does not make the people having sex gay, and given the fact that many of the people who do this don't consider themselves gay, the health authorities simply refer to the specific action that caused the transmission rather than try to make some sort of judgement call such as whether or not somebody is gay, straight, or bi.Thus, "men who have sex with men" or "MSM," "intravenous drug use" or "IDU," even when HIV is transmitted between people of opposite sex, it's "heterosexual sex."Notice, this does cause a bit of a problem when it comes to dealing with men who have sex with both men and women. It is common to lump them in with the MSMs rather than the "heterosexual sex" unless there is convincing evidence that it is from heterosexual sex. This will throw the numbers off.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is. Don't tell me you're about to use an English translation?

---

​

Urm yes.

---

But that's the source of the trouble and the point of this debate:You're referring to a mistranslation. And since we live in a culture where very few actually refer to the original (caveat of "closest we can get"), any mistranslations that have arisen simply get passed along.

quote:

---

And thus we quote some of those translations from the Masoretic Text.

---

But what makes you think your translation is accurate? Your example of Leviticus shows the problem. Yeah, "abomination" does have some appropriate connotation, but not really. A better term is "ritually unclean."

quote:

---

Cant really spell homosexuality any clearer can you ?

---

Actually, you can. You see, there was no concept of "homosexuality" at the time. Leviticus is referring to the pagan fertility rites and temple prostitution.Who was the last temple prostitute you knew? When was the last time you heard of somebody going to church to have sex with the officiates in order to guarantee a good harvest that year?

quote:

---

But wait, there was no such thing as homosexuality amoung the Isrealites, they were merely talking about ‘lying down’ ?

---

No, they were talking about ritualistic practices.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, Zealot, in a couple lines later, Lot also uses "yadda" to talk about how his daughters have not had sex. But, the phrasing used in the Hebrew is not the same as when the crowd demands to see the two men.

---

​

The WORD is exactly the same as the one they used to refer to sex.

---

No, it isn't. I quoted a transliteration for you, Zealot, and pointed out how they don't match up.Is there a particular reason why you didn't read it?

quote:

---

Lot uses the same word to describe it BACK to them.

---

No, he doesn't. I quoted a transliteration for you, Zealot, and pointed out how they don't match up.Is there a particular reason why you didn't read it?

quote:

---

And you claim ignorance based on the phrasing ?

---

No, not ignorance. I claim knowledge. I claim that I looked at the Hebrew, read the passage directly, noticed that the words used are not the same, and concluded that those who claim that Gen 19:5 uses the same words in the same intent that Gen 19:8 does simply do not know what they're talking about.Oops...I used the word "know." Does that mean I'm talking about your sex life, Zealot?I mean, it's the same "WORD," to use your words.I am finished doing your homework, Zealot. If you cannot be bothered to look at the information I have provided you, then you're just going to have to live in ignorance.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A different phrase than that used in Genesis 19. Go look it up. Here's a transliteration from the Hebrew of the two verses in question:

​

Genesis 19:5: va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam:

​

Judges 19:22: he.ma mei.ti.vim et-li.bam ve.hi.ne an.shei ha.ir an.shei ve.nei-ve.li.ya.al na.sa.bu et-ha.ba.yit mit.dap.kim al-ha.da.let va.yom.ru el-ha.ish ba.al ha.ba.yit ha.za.ken le.mor ho.tse et-ha.ish a.sher-ba el-bet.kha ve.ne.da.e.nu:

​

You will note that the two do not match up.

​

Oh, and just for good measure, here's the verse where Lot talks of his daughters not "knowing" men:

​

Genesis 19:8: hi.ne-na li she.tei va.not a.sher lo-yad.u ish o.tsi.a-na et.hen a.lei.khem va.a.su la.hen ka.tov be.ei.nei.khem rak la.a.na.shim ha.el al-ta.a.su da.var ki-al-ken ba.u be.tsel ko.ra.ti:

​

Again, it doesn't match up.

---

​

You are kidding right ?

---

Why would I kid?

quote:

---

Levitican Law was pretty clear about homosexuality

---

How could it be clear about something it didn't think existed and had no concept about?I've got an object on my bathroom counter. Tell me something about it. Something clear. What color is it? How big is it? What is it typically used for? What do I actually use it for? This should be easy, right?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does the word "politics" mean nothing to you?

---

​

That your answer ?

---

That's the generally accepted answer. Most biblical scholars are well-aware of the political agenda surrounding the KJV.

quote:

---

A bunch of homophobes decided to completely change the meaning of the text in one translation, and no-one noticed ?

---

Since practically nobody had ever read the Bible, how could they notice?Assuming you're from the US, when was the last time you read the Constitution, Zealot? I mean sat down and read it all the way through, every word. I can guarantee you that there are a lot of people who think that the Second Amendment says, in its entirety, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Why? Because that's the only part of it that so many people seem to quote. Imagine their shock when they see that it actually reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Suddenly that amendment means something very different.Of course, all this is meaningless since for the story of Lot, the KJV doesn't call the mob gay. The text is not so bad."Bring them out so that we may know them."If you're trying to describe the words of a bunch of people who are at the door trying to get the inhabitant to bring forth the strangers being sheltered there in order to be interrogated, that's what you'd probably say."Who have not known man."If you're making a euphemism for the fact that your daughters are virgins, that's what you'd probably say.It's only when idiots come along and say that the "know" in the first phrase means the same thing as the "know" in the second phrase, conveniently ignoring all the other establishing context that was just displayed.

quote:

---

So homosexuality among Jews is not sinfull then huh ?

---

Among the most common sects of Judaism, no.

quote:

---

PS: Does Judaism believe the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lots visitors..

---

No.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible.

---

​

Urm don’t know what to say to that really, hehe.

---

Why not?Let's take a look at history, shall we? You do know that there was a reason that the Catholic church insisted that the Bible remain in Latin, yes? It's a lot easier to convince people that the Bible said something when they couldn't go look it up for themselves. You could keep them in the control of the church when they cannot go to anybody but you for the rites and the words. There's a reason for all that iconography: The people couldn't read and to help remind them of the stories of the Bible, pictures were made that could be understood.There was a huge furor over the Bible being translated into the language of the local people. Who would need the priests to tell them what the Bible said if they could read it for themselves?

quote:

---

Well, most Biblical Scholars seem to have little trouble understanding the Masoretic text to indicate homosexuality being sinfull

---

No, most of them seem to agree that the Bible is pretty much silent on the topic. There are a few references to temple prostitution but absolutely no reference to what we would call "homosexuality."This is not surprising since nobody at the time understood the concept of "homosexuality." They simply didn't see the world that way.

quote:

---

Only time will tell huh.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, Zealot. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, Zealot has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, Zealot gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM![This message has been edited by Rrhain, 10-17-2003]

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

People who track HIV do not track people as "homosexual."

---

​

Funny that, but you seem to have no problem stating

​

"Um, heterosexuality has always been the greater vector compared to homosexuality when it comes to HIV infection."

---

It's called "logic," Zealot.How many gay people are there? Not many when compared to the number of straight people.How much same-sex sex happens? A fair amount...significantly more than can be accounted for by the number of gay people, though. It seems as though the straights are also screwing around.How much opposite-sex sex happens? A huge amount...but not so much that we're left wondering if the gay people are having opposite-sex sex, too.So, when we see an instance of same-sex sex, is it reasonable to automatically declare the participants gay?No, not really. It's probably a safe bet, but the best bet is to actually look at the people and make a determination as there is a significant possibility that at least one of the people involved isn't gay.So, when we see an instance of opposite-sex sex, is it reasonable to automatically declare the participants straight?Yeah, pretty much. Oh, there are gay people who have opposite-sex sex, but they are so few and far between that they form an insignificant number.

quote:

---

I give up !

---

But have you learned anything? Here, let me see if I can give you an example of how economies of scale can change things.Suppose you have an HIV test that is 98% accurate. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, suppose you administer the test and it comes back positive. What are the odds that the test is right?98%, right?Well, no...it depends upon how prevalent HIV is.Suppose that one-half of one percent of the population is HIV+. That means of 10,000 people, there are 50 people who are HIV+.So if we apply this 98% accurate test, of the 9,950 people who are negative, 2% of them or 199 will come back with a false positive.And of the 50 people who are positive, only 98% or 49 will come back with a true positive.So we've got 248 positives of which only 49 are true.That means with this 98% accurate test, the chance that a test coming back positive really means you are positive is a little less than 20%.Because there are so many more people who are negative, their false positives crowd out the true positives.Now, this example uses some extreme numbers, but I hope you can see my point. There are many more straight people than there are gay people. And yes, there will be those who every now and then "bat for the other team." But because there are so many straight people, their actions will provide a significant portion of the same-sex activity while the opposite is not true.Thus, same-sex activity has a good chance of not being between gay people. Opposite-sex activity, on the other hand, is practically guaranteed to be between straight people.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

I merely questioned Rrhains suggestion that infact Heterosexual sex had a greater risk of HIV infection that homosexual sex.

---

And I gave you the references. I even used *your* source to show you the references.

quote:

---

ALSO, you dont mention ratio's of homosexual to heterosexual.

---

That's because, as I told you before, we don't know. Not only do we not know that ratio, the simple fact of the matter is that nobody is keeping track of the sexuality of people. As you were shown above, just because people are of the same sex, that doesn't mean they're gay. What is tracked is whether or not you got it from someone of the same sex or of the opposite sex.

quote:

---

"Only 4% of the HIV cases are from homosexuals" .. WOW
BUT:
"Only 1% of the population is homosexual"

---

(*chuckle*)Why didn't you use the following hypothetical numbers?"Only 4% of the HIV cases are from homosexuals"
BUT
"Only 10% of the population is homosexual"And you say you're not trying to claim that HIV is a gay disease....

quote:

---

Do lesbians become 'one flesh' in the same way hetero or homosexual become 'one flesh' ?

---

Um, you do understand that lesbains are homosexuals, yes?But to get to your point, yes. Gay people, including lesbians, become "one flesh" in the same way that straight people do.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

IF I keep my post brief , you wont ignore this specific verse I've referred to twice.

---

I already answered it. Leviticus is not referring to homosexuals. How could it when they had no concept of homosexuality?Yes, you don't see the admonition against temple prostitutes, but that's because you aren't looking. First, you have a mistranslation. "Abomination" is not the right word. "Ritually unclean" is better...the opposite of "kosher," in a sense. Leviticus is talking about ritualistic practices.And what would temple prostitution be if not a ritualistic practice?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So homosexuality among Jews is not sinfull then huh ?

---

​

Among the most common sects of Judaism, no.

---

​

That's interesting because surely they are all able to understand Hebrew ?

---

Yes. That's why they don't consider homosexuality to be sinful, really.There's nothing in the Torah that says that it is. This is not surprising since the culture at the time had no concept of it and the language had no words for it.

quote:

---

Again mistranslations ?

---

No, not at all. Jewish texts don't read like Christian ones. The word "to'evah" doesn't really mean "abomination" except in a ritualistic sense.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Nothing in the Bible or old testament indicated that the Jew's were in any way accepting of Homosexuality.

---

Um, David and Johnathan. The Old Testament doesn't have much in it with regard to love stories, but the tale of D and J is right up there. Note, this doesn't mean D and J were gay (again, there's no concept of homosexuality), but it does mean that falling in love with another person of the same sex isn't exactly the worst thing in the world.At worst, it is most accurate to say that nothing in the Bible (which includes the Old Testament) indicated that Jews were in any way hostile of homosexuality.But then again, this is not surprising since they had no concept of it and no words to describe it.How do you make a statement about something you don't understand and can't describe?

quote:

---

I mean, heck, we've only spend a month trying to dispute whether homosexuality is a sin, when it sais so clearly in Lev!

---

No, it doesn't.What makes you think "to'evah" means "abomination" rather than "ritually unclean"?

quote:

---

Call it an abomination, call it 'wrong' , call it Pagan. I care not.

---

You should. None of those three mean the same thing. So to use one when a better choice would be another means you're not getting the intent of the passage.

quote:

---

Fact is it is a sin, punishment death.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?The text you claim justifies you doesn't say what you think it says.

quote:

---

but think Lot just insane in RANDOMLY offering his daughters to the men at his house.

---

No, Lot is not "randomly" offering his daughters. He has a deliberate agenda in mind: Distract the mob.And that would be a useful thing if the mob were made of people who weren't gay. After all, if they were gay, what on earth was Lot thinking offering them sex with someone of the opposite sex? They wouldn't take the bait.If you know that everybody in your town has peanut allergies and will never eat peanuts and they're pounding at your door, would you try to distract them with peanut brittle? What would be the use? They're never going to take it because they don't eat peanuts.So if the entire male population of Sodom were gay and pounding at your door, would you try to distract them by offering them sex with women? What would be the use? They're never going to take it because they don't have sex with women.The only way Lot's action becomes "random" is if the township is gay. But since Lot is not behaving randomly, since he has a specific agenda in mind, then we must necessarily conclude that the township of Sodom was not gay.If they are gay, Lot's actions make no sense. If they're not gay, we can understand what Lot was trying to do.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

would you like to air your views on whether Lev 20:13 is a clear indication that God considered Homosexuality a sin, or is it another mistranslation ?

---

Yes, it is a mistranslation.

quote:

---

Thing is Zephyr, Rrhain has been arguing with great conviction that there is nothing in the bible that even refers to homosexuality, so either he is correct , or the vast majority of Jewish and Christians are wrong.

---

Um, since Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin, I think the problem isn't that the Jews are wrong but that the Christians are.They seem to think that something in the Old Testament refers to homosexuality.And even worse, they seem to think that something in the New Testament refers to homosexuality, too.There simply aren't that many references to same-sex sexual activity in the Bible. None of them refer to anything that we would describe as "homosexuality." They're all about ritualistic sex, temple prostitution, and the like.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

​

Can you tell me which word is wrong ?

---

You've already been told.The word that is wrong is "abomination." "To'evah" doesn't really mean that. Instead, it means "ritually unclean."In short, Leviticus is about ritualistic practices. And in specific, that verse is about ritualistic sex.Since the people at the time had no concept of homosexuality and no words to describe it, it can't possibly be a reference to what we call "homosexuality."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

IT DOES refer to homosexuality alone.

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

PLEASE Holmes, its clear, you know that, I know that, Rei AND Rrhain knows that.

---

I'll ask you to kindly refrain from claiming access to what I do and do not know.What I know is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality. They had no concept for it and no words to describe it. How does one make a statement, pro or con or even neutral, about something that on doesn't comprehend and has no words to describe?

quote:

---

Its NOT taken out of context, the context is sexual immorality as I've shown.

---

No, you haven't shown. All you've done is repeat the same verse over and over again.

quote:

---

Read the text again.

---

I have...it keeps coming up the same way:Ve'ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to'evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.That word, "to-evah," it keeps coming up to mean "ritually unclean." I don't know where you got "abomination."

quote:

---

Why do you think Isrealites were not allowed to have gay relationships or marriages ?

---

Because it never occurred to them that anybody would. They had no concept of homosexuality. Even people whom we would consider to be gay by our standards wouldn't understand what we're talking about.That said, the biggest love story in the Old Testament is one between two men: David and Johnathan.

quote:

---

Because this was the LAW, passed down to them.

---

Where? I don't see anything in the law that proscribes same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

There is in now way, a more specific wording could be used to indicate a man-man relationships to be sinfull.

---

Actually, there are plenty of ways to directly state it: "Homosexual relationships are sinful."The problem is, there was no word for "homosexual" and not even a concept to describe such a thing.Therefore, how could anything in the text possibly refer to what we consider homosexuality?F'rinstance, if you look at the laws in Victorian England regarding sex between people of the same sex, they didn't apply to women. Why? Because it never occurred to them that women would ever do that sort of thing. They didn't think lesbians existed.

quote:

---

Once you agree its sin, we can go on to the topic of why it is still sin, when other Mosaic Laws aren't.

---

Um, there's nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality, either.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

HOWEVER the important part is FIRSTLY to be able to convince Holmes and others that according to Lev. law, homosexual sex is a sin, before I can continue with this discussion.

---

But since it isn't, you're going to be here a long time. Leviticus has nothing to say about homosexuality as we understand it.How could it? The Ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality and no words to describe it.

quote:

---

Unfortunitely the only people that seem to air their views are Holmes (bisexual) and Rei (lesbian) and Rrhain (not sure about his sexuality).

---

Does it matter?Why does the sexual orientation of a person affect the validity of the argument?There's a reason I keep my sexual orientation and personal religious views out of these discussions: It's to prevent people from saying, "You're only saying that because you're such-and-such."Would my arguments change at all if you were to find out that my sexual orientation were not what you are guessing it to be?If not, then who cares?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

You attempt isn't even laughable, it's just sad.

---

I know...that's why you have all of our sympathy, Zealot. We're hoping you can get over this sad insistence of yours that you've got the perfect translation, but only you can do the work required.

quote:

---

WHO CARES whether its an abomination/unclean ? The penalty is death!

---

The penalty is death because it is unclean.And you would only apply the penalty to one who had done the "to'evah" action in the first place.Do you see anybody having sex with the temple prostitutes these days?No?Then I guess Leviticus 20:13 doesn't really apply, then, does it?

quote:

---

There is no word (as you claim!) for homosexuals, so God makes it clear 'MAN LIE MANKIND'

---

But in reference to temple prostitution.Therefore, it doesn't apply to homosexuals. After all, not only is there no word to describe homosexuality, the Ancient Hebrews don't even know what homosexuality is.

quote:

---

NOT 'Man sells himself as prostitute'

---

But Lev. 20:13 isn't about the temple prostitute. It's about the Jew who avails himself of the temple prostitute as the pagan rituals required.

quote:

---

He makes the comparison VIVID and CLEAR

---

Indeed: Don't have sex with the temple prostitutes as required by the pagan rituals.

quote:

---

But wait, shall we use the same argument and say that its only a sin because it in Leviticus and doesn't apply anymore ?

---

Irrelevant. I'm not arguing that Leviticus doesn't apply. In fact, I'm arguing from a Judaic tradition which certainly does think that Leviticus applies and if they don't think homosexuality is a sin, then I think they get to trump whatever Christians claim.Now, if you want to argue the New Testament, we can go over there. There's nothing in there about homosexuality, either.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

roxrtool responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

After all, not only is there no word to describe homosexuality, the Ancient Hebrews don't even know what homosexuality is.

---

​

How is this possible?

---

The same way the Victorians didn't think that lesbianism existed. It just never occurred to them. The way society worked, that conception of the universe simply never got organized into its own category.How about an example from our own culture:What is the blue or green equivalent of "pink"?You have to futz around to come up with an answer. In English, there simply is no color term for a light shade of blue the way there is for a light shade of red.Now, you can sorta talk about it, but you are constantly referring to the base color in order to do so. Sky blue, baby blue, powder blue, they're all a type of blue. But pink, on the other hand, has managed to get separated from red. We don't see light shades of blue as something other than blue but we do see light shades of red as a different color from red.Other languages have even more dramatic versions. Some languages have only two color terms: Black and white (and for all languages that have only two color terms, they are always black and white.) It isn't that they don't see color. It's that they relate to color as it connects to other objects. In English, "turquoise" as a color refers to the rock. "Lavender" refers to the plant. But in two-color languages, all colors are in reference to objects, not to colors in and of themselves.[Interestingly, the fruit called "orange" in English is named after the color rather than the other way around.]When it comes to sexuality, cultural attitudes can play a lot. Ancient Athens and Sparta often had separated societies of men and women. Sparta's version was quite extreme: Males were separated from their mothers when they were 7 years old and never really saw them ever again until they married...usually when he was coming upon 30 years old. During that time, he had been instructed in sex by other men.How on earth would these people deal with the opposite sex when it comes to sexuality? The society had a way of dealing with it: On the wedding night, the groom would steal away from his companions in the mess, go to visit his bride, have sex with her, and then return. In essence, he would have the best of both worlds. Most men made the transition fine, but for some, they would continue this focus on their comrades for years.But nobody would ever have called what was going on in the mess "gay." They simply didn't see the world that way. It wasn't that they didn't recognize the fact that people of the same sex were having sex. It's that they didn't equate what was going on between people of the same sex as the same kind of relationship as that between people of the opposite sex.

quote:

---

I'm sure homosexuals were around at the time so why would they have no name for it?

---

Because nobody thought homosexuality as we understand it even existed. Our society has come up with this concept of the "nuclear family" where a man and a woman get married and become an independent unit, leaving everyone else behind. That is an extremely recent innovation. If you look at society in earlier times, you find that families tended to stay together in much larger groups. And when you go back further to before industrialization and the rise of the leisure class, we find more restrictive gender roles and men and women often only rarely saw each other for extended periods of time.And when you put people together who haven't had sex in a long time, they eventually take care of business on their own.There's a lot of sex that goes on in prison. Pretty much all of it is same-sex. Very few of them would consider themselves to be gay. They don't see it that way.Take a look at many of the cultures that subscribe to what we tend to call "machismo." A man having sex with someone of the same sex is not gay if he is the one on top. In fact, it enhances his masculinity. He cannot neglect his need to father children, but he can still screw around with guys pretty much with abandon.

quote:

---

Is it basically because it was unimportant to them?

---

Depends upon the culture. In some cases, "guys will be guys" and as long as the important "husbandly duties" are taken care of, it's no big deal. In some cases, especially with women, it's because they simply don't think that sort of thing can happen. Women don't enjoy sex, so what on earth would they be doing having sex with each other?

quote:

---

Do you happen to know when terms referring to sexual orientation did pop up in history?

---

The origin of the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is from the late 1800s, however other words are much older. For example, "catamite" is from the 16th century, "sodomite" from the 14th, and "sodomy" from the 13th.Our current understanding of sexual orientation is a fairly modern one.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rei responds to me:

quote:

---

To add to it, pink itself is named after the flower,

---

Um...I'm not so sure about that. In English, "pink" is a pure color term. "Turquoise" is not.

quote:

---

Also, in Japanese, there weren't distinct colors for blue or green until western influence arrived - there was only one color, which is halfway between the two (aoi - eg, one might say "Anokata wa aoi hitomi iru" -> "That person has blue-green eyes."). The concept of a distinct color for green and a distinct color for blue but not a distinct color for "blue-green" was foreign to them.

---

The development of color terms is quite fascinating. There appears to be something wired in our brains about this. That is, if you look at languages with regard to their pure color terms, there is a definitive progression:1) There are no one-color or zero-color languages.
2) All two-color languages are black/white.
3) All three-color languages are black/white/red.
4) At four colors, it is either yellow or blue/green.
5) At five colors, if you had yellow, you get blue/green. If you had blue/green, you get yellow.
6) At six colors, blue and green separate.Beyond that, things get funky with how colors like orange, purple, grey, pink, and so on come in.Now, how do we know this? Because native speakers of the language are presented with a color-chip board representing an astounding number of hues and are asked to choose the color that best typifies the word in question. In all two-color languages, it is the same color that we as speakers of English associate with the word "black." That is, they define "black" the same way we do.Languages with "blue/green" are interesting, however, in that the choice is either what we would call "blue" or "green," but the other color is considered a shade of it. Thus, if the language has centered on "blue," they would consider colors that we would call "green" to be shades of "blue."That is, if you were to take a speaker of English and show them the color chip and ask what the most typical example of "blue" and what the most typical example of "green" is and then take a speaker of a "blue/green" language and ask what the most typical example of "blue/green" is, it would be one of those two colors that we, as speakers of English, would have chosen. They don't choose a color in between what speakers of English tend to define as typical "blue" or "green."It isn't that they don't see the difference. They just don't divide the world up the same way. We, as speakers of English, divide pink off from red but don't do the same for any other color.Oh, and to put an evolutionary spin on this, is anybody surprised that the first three colors that show up in language are black, white, and red?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!