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

1) The men of Spara (and most of ancient Greece) were not gay. They were encouraged to be bisexual.2) Lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV transmission. Does this mean that God loves us more than all of you straight people?(I *REALLY* want an answer to #2).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well, the word in Dt. 23:17 is qadesh. It is derrived from Qadesh, the goddess of sexual pleasure (who the Egyptians adoped as a triad, with Min and Reshep). The cult of Qadesh (the goddess) was despised in Israel as being depraved for the promiscuous sexual practices that they performed. In Hebrew, the word came to mean "cult prostitute".I mean, for God's sake, the word translated as "whore" in reference to women is qadeshah (the female form of qadesh)! How can you get "whore" for one and "sodomite" for the other? It's ridiculous.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

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]

In the *west*, AIDS was largely spread through gay men. (Note: men, not women. Lesbians have a *lower* chance of becoming infected with AIDS than straight people. Does God love us more?) Worldwide, it was spread 1) 75% through heterosexuals, 2) then through IV drug users next most. Why do only western nations seem to matter to you? In North America's worst bubonic plague outbreak, it was almost exclusively confined to Chinese immigrants, because it came from China, and the immigrants often lived near each other. Was that God's punishment to the Chinese?Care to respond to the Dr. Laura letter, Zealot?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Could you do the the favour of posting where you got your statistical information from ? I think I did that in my post, thanks.

---

I was actually using one other poster's cite for WHO figures. Doing my own check, I come into:404"Assumed modes of HIV transmission in AIDS cases reported during recent years vary considerably from region to region For example, about 90% of reported AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa have reportedly been infected through heterosexual transmission. The proportion is much lower in other regions, although a substantial number of AIDS cases have been infected heterosexually in Asia, Latin America and North Africa/Middle East. The pattern in industrialized countries is mixed but it should be noted that heterosexual transmission is increasingly a cause of HIV infection in reported AIDS cases in these countries. In industrialized countries, Eastern Europe and Asia, a high proportion of reported infections is due to injecting drug use."Africa has 90% of new AIDS cases worldwide, BTW.404Africans-Americans are now more than 8 times more likely to have AIDS than Caucasian Americans. Is this God's punishment to African Americans? AIDS is the number one killer of male African Americans aged 22-44, and is number two for female African Americans.In Belarus, for example, 80% of their HIV cases are IV drug users. That's the sort of distorted statistics you can get by picking specific countries as you did.404In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a correlation between literacy and HIV. Is HIV God's punishment for the literate Africans?Yes, heterosexual men have a higher transmission rate than straight couples. But lesbians have a lower risk. IV drug use has a much higher chance of spreading. So does being African. So does being a medical worker, or in many countries, having a blood transfusion.Given all of this, how can you conclude that this is God's punishment for homosexuality? And again, I ask: does God love lesbians more than straights?The Dr. Laura letter is a famous piece (already posted) related to the old testament commandments against homosexuality.You can find a copy of it here:pintday.orgBTW, concerning Paul's speech, I find it amusing the amount people try and read into coined, unreferenced, unknown-translation words, spoken to a culture that for the most part had no concept of homosexuality as it is known today, only pederasty. That might read well as a condemnation of NAMBLA, but hardly of homosexuality in general.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I wasn't able to find the exact numbers in a quick WHO search (and don't have time to spend hours on it), but the part which discussed that 90% of sub-Saharan Africans who have HIV contracted it through hetero sex, the fact that IV is the number two cause, and the fact that 9 in 10 new cases of HIV are in Africa (as a whole) make a pretty compelling case that it is not a gay disease. As I stated before, there are many categories which have higher risk rates, and ones with lower risk rates. Gay men are higher, but so are medical workers, children who need blood in poor countries, literate sub-Saharan Africans, et cetera.Now, please don't dodge the issues:1) What about lesbians? Does God love us more than all of you straight people?
2) Your response to the points in the Dr. Laura letter?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Nice try, Zealot, but I'm not going to let you dodge that easily. That the *original* numbers that I cited were another poster's, not mine - and I already told you that (multiple times, now). I gave what I could dig up from WHO on short notice, which showed quite obviously that it was not a gay disease, and cited references. How ironic that you critique me for not spending enough time looking up figures, when I did spend an hour on that, while you refuse to even address the core of my posts. Why should I spend more time on it when you won't even address two simple questions?

quote:

---

Have a look at my response to your questions. I'm currently working on replying to Holmes. It takes a while. If you want to join in the discussion, but care not to do some form of research as to statements you make, please dont ask me to spend a significant amount of time to answer your question.

---

You haven't answered my questions, so, no, you don't get off that easily. Answer the following:90% of sub-Saharan Africans who have HIV contracted it through hetero sex. IV is the number two cause. 9 in 10 new cases of HIV are in Africa (as a whole). There are many categories which have higher risk rates, and ones with lower risk rates. Gay men are higher, but so are medical workers, children who need blood in poor countries, literate sub-Saharan Africans, et cetera.
Now, please don't dodge the issues:1) What about lesbians? Does God love us more than all of you straight people?
2) Your response to the points in the Dr. Laura letter?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-17-2003]

quote:

---

Your statistics from WHO showed little evidence RE homosexual HIV pct's. Indeed I could find no ratios of HIV infections from Hetero to Homo sexuals.

---

How much of the documents *did* you read?

quote:

---

I dont think I made a point of saying 'HIV' is a gay dissease. I merely questioned Rrhains suggestion that infact Heterosexual sex had a greater risk of HIV infection that homosexual sex.

---

In the US and Britain, that's true. Not everywhere in the world, however.

quote:

---

1. Ok, you manage to tell me that 90% heterosexual sex yes. You also manage to say 'next up' is IV.

---

Did you actually read the papers?

quote:

---

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

​

* full statistics.

---

Full statistics from....?

quote:

---

ANS: Does God have to be punish everyone by the same means ? Surely a serial killer is a worst sinner than a lesbian, yet he doesn't specifically risk contracting HIV.

---

So then, what *is* our worldly punishment? Does God not have one for us?

quote:

---

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

---

Yep

quote:

---

Point from the original conversation is that should a married Christian couple remain faithfull to one another, they are not at all likely to catch HIV.

---

Medical workers in many places still have a fair chance of it. Blood transfusions used to spread it commonly in the US, and still do in other countries. Breastfed babies can contract their mother's HIV, despite doing nothing wrong themselves - giving you HIV positive children. Also, do you take this stance with all diseases, or just HIV?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-22-2003]

quote:

---

Your turn now.

---

Wait a minute... I respond to your post, and you respond with "Your turn now."? I think you've confused the concept of "turns".------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

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.]

---

An interesting side tangent To add to it, pink itself is named after the flower, which is in turn named after the "pinked" edges of the petals ("pinked" as in what "pinking shears" do to fabric - rippled edges).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.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Eventually we can write an entire chapter in the Bible about what type of homosexual acts are sin, but is that really neccesary ?

​

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. It was clearly around in Levitical times, just as adultery, beastiality, masterbation, incest and all the rest. They knew about all those.. but not homosexuality

---

But the thing is, they did write a whole chapter about what types of sexual acts are sins. And it does include things such as adultery, beastiality, etc. And much of the chapter is in the context of pagan rituals.And once again, since you've refused to answer, I'll pose it again: Are Christians bound by Levitical law? I.e., are you going to hell because you wear a shirt that's 50 cotton/50 poly?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

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.

---

According to my dictionary, "pink" is derrived from Middle English pingen and pinken, which comes from the Latin pungere, which means to "push back" or "prick". That's how pinking shears got their name. Pinks (such as carnations) are named because their flowers look "pinked".Of course, in modern usage, pink isn't related to an object, people use it as a pure color, as you mentioned. People don't just look at a light blue and say "cornflower" or "sky blue" immediately; the reaction time for "pink" is far shorter, it's much more embedded into our language.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

But the thing is, they did write a whole chapter about what types of sexual acts are sins. And it does include things such as adultery, beastiality, etc. And much of the chapter is in the context of pagan rituals.

quote:

---

Yes, they devote and entire chapter to what types of Heterosexual deeds are sinfull, yet only 1 or 2 lines about homosexual intercourse.

---

Yes. That's called being vague.

quote:

---

If they had devoted an entire page to specific what types of homosexual deeds were sinfull, Would you not think that perhaps some deeds were ok... ?

---

Lets take an analogy. Iowa Code 562B.25A. Under section 2, which discusses things that can get you kicked out of your apartment. 2b reads: "Illegal use of a firearm or other weapon, the threat to use a firearm or other weapon illegally, or possession of an illegal firearm.". Should one interpret this to mean that if you ever illegally use a firearm, you're to get kicked out of your apartment? Of course not.. Laws only make sense in context. The context here is tenant law. The context of this chapter of Leviticus is prohibition of pagan rites."After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.". That's how it begins. How much clearer do you need than that.

quote:

---

Did they spend pages discussing what types of Beastuality were sinfull ? No.

---

Right. They covered all of the bases. Did they do that here? Not even close. Was bestiality back then the same as it is now? Pretty much. Was male-male sexual activity in ancient Israel remotely reflective of modern-day same sex relationships of all kinds? Not even close. Back then, we're looking at pagan sexual rites - as have already been discussed. Are people who get civil unions going home to practice worship of Qadesh, or anything of the sort?Yes, they were quite explicit. There was nothing "unsure" about it. "Unsure" and "explicit" are contradictory. They were quite sure, and quite explicit. The thing that is left unsure, and unexplicit, is between same sex sexual partners. One has to, as a consequence, rely on context. They don't go and enumerate same sex activities as they do with opposite sex activities. They don't even mention lesbians at all, for YHVH's sake!

quote:

---

The text describes homosexual sex, so they knew what it was.

---

Not really. The text describes one position, of one type of sex between one type of same-sex couple - in a chapter that, as I mentioned, starts with references to set their people apart from their pagan surroundings, ends with references to set people apart from their pagan surroundings, and is the same through the middle.

quote:

---

Any Levitical sin 'murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander' would still be sins.Why the Jews dont follow it, I dont know.

---

After the temple was destroyed, Levitical law became impossible to follow. Rabbis reasoned that it was not specifically the *act* of the sacrifices (and other things) that was critical, but the act of worshipping God. The sacrifices themselves were just a way to force the early Jews to consciously remember God in their everyday lives. Thus, study and reciting of the Torah replaced the sacrifices.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me." fixed quote tags - the Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-29-2003]

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, they devote and entire chapter to what types of Heterosexual deeds are sinfull, yet only 1 or 2 lines about homosexual intercourse.

---

​

Yes. That's called being vague.

---

​

Not at all. In the same way they were not vague about beastuality. When the explicit command is 'Do not cross that line ',

---

Ok. My partner and I won't become males and then have sex in the style of a man having sex with a woman. Does that sound good? No? Then the law is vague, at least in reference to homosexuality as a whole. [quote]

quote:

---

Lets take an analogy. Iowa Code 562B.25A. Under section 2, which discusses things that can get you kicked out of your apartment. 2b reads: "Illegal use of a firearm or other weapon, the threat to use a firearm or other weapon illegally, or possession of an illegal firearm.". Should one interpret this to mean that if you ever illegally use a firearm, you're to get kicked out of your apartment? Of course not.. Laws only make sense in context. The context here is tenant law. The context of this chapter of Leviticus is prohibition of pagan rites.

​

No offense, but I've spend a significant amount of time studying the book and discussing context issues. Atleast address points I have brought up. As you can see there was a specific chapter deligated to sexual acts, followed by laws in general, followed by punishments for sins.

​

Again you want to convince me that 'putting a stumbling block infront of a blind man' was a Pagan ritual ? Sleeping with your neighbours wife a ritual ? Taking your wife and her mother a ritual ?

---

1. What issues of yours *haven't* I addressed? If I missed some, I would like to know about it.2. A stumbling block in front of the blind isn't in Lev. 18; what are you looking at? As to "sleeping with a neighbor's wife", how much do you have to skim over to ignore the fact that God begins with and concludes with discussion of the forbidden sexual practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites - and when it comes to male-male sexual activity, these practices were done in the context of pagan worship.3. Do I need to remind you that God repeatedly states that these are his commands to the Israelites?

quote:

---

Its about sex. And God mentions these as deeds that the other nations all did. Indeed Jesus refers to the Mosaic Laws (sexual perversions)in the new testament.

---

So you're saying that *some* of the letter of the law (which was addressed to the Israelites) remains word-for-word, but not others? So, you believe that the commandment about sex during mensturation still stands?

quote:

---

This I completely fail to grasp. Sorry, but why would gay sex be ANY different from today ? I know quite a few gay people Rei!

---

And do they do their actions to, say, worship Qadesh?

quote:

---

This is reinforced by the fact that should homosexuality have been acceptable in common terms, surely the text would have been EXPLICIT to the priests that homosexuality was wrong.

---

Not if it was known in any other context.

quote:

---

The priests have seperate, explicit commands as to their duty. They already know there is NO sexual activities to be had in Worshipping God. Yet you believe still God chooses to spend an entire chapter explaining to the priests about what sexual acts are wrong. Why ? We already know there are to be NO sexual worshipping acts.

---

The Levites weren't the only ones to worship, Zealot

quote:

---

They don't go and enumerate same sex activities as they do with opposite sex activities. They don't even mention lesbians at all, for YHVH's sake!

​

Now THAT tells you something doesn't it ?

---

That God has no problem with Lesbians, apparently. If I said that it was forbidden for you to drive a Model T, and you drove a thunderbird, it's clear-cut - you're not breaking what I said was forbidden to you. Or is this commandment "vague" concerning homosexuality as a whole - exactly what I have been claiming the whole time?

quote:

---

Not really. The text describes one position, of one type of sex between one type of same-sex couple - in a chapter that, as I mentioned, starts with references to set their people apart from their pagan surroundings, ends with references to set people apart from their pagan surroundings, and is the same through the middle.

​

One position ? It's called sex. And its in a chapter discussing sex. Right after that chapter it discusses common laws.

---

Do we really need to get into types of sexual activity other than "lying with a man as you would with a woman" - for both gay men and lesbians?

quote:

---

A good example of environment affecting one's faith. The act of sacrifise was a very specific instruction given directly from God. Indeed the only way for someone to cover their sins. That such a vital part could be removed is interesting.

---

The Jews might well say that about Christianity, as well.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Not only that but he specifies that the only things that are unclean are "murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander".

---

Ah. So the thing about clothing made from two different kinds of fabric is under the "cleanliness" category? I thought it was under the "shalt not" category. I must be mistaken, Zealot - so, tell me then, what is the process for becoming clean again after wearing clothes from two different kinds of fabric, or pulling a plow by two different kinds of animals, or anything of the sort?By the way, I should remind my slaves to be good to their masters, as Paul says...------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."