Same sex marriage

My dog had this cute bitch running around with him for months. He was humping her a lot, so I wondered why she never got pregnant. Then one day I happened to be in a position to notice that the little bitch had a set of balls.Wanna hear about the cat that gave head to dogs?db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

Wish I'd known about this sooner. Are you sure about it? I've had a lot of dinner dates that went nowhere. But if and when we got together in the sack (whether or not we'd had dinner together), things tended to continue for a while. Ask someone to lunch?[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-10-2003]

Would you consider the possibility that it is one aspect in the development of intimacy but is, in itself, intially comprised of base instinct + inculturated mate-recognition responses?In my prepubertal years I found my imagination of the sex act to be disgusting. Even now I can appreciate that sentiment when it is expressed by my male patients who no longer feel driven. I am convinced that without the instinctual urge, I would have continued to find the matter disgusting.I see no need to seek social explanations or rational motivations for sexual behavior. Sex hormones activate preprogrammed behaviors destined to culminate in reproduction. Pair bonding is a factor which contributes to the success of that success. My observation has been that attitudes and appetites associated with sexual behaviors are not gender specific; although we may caricaturize males as driven to inseminate and corrale as many females as possible; and females to manipulate and collect semen from as many males as possible. I have witnessed the outworking of these drives in the lives of the men and women whom I have known, including myself and the female partners with whom I have cohabited or otherwise shared a sexual relation.Some have characterized marriage as "legalized prostitution," and while I find that rather cynical I must report having observed things which would lead me to aggree with it. I have been in relationships where the sex was great and there seemed to be intimacy but in the end, her greatest concern seemed to be what she could take of current and future goods and services. This is often characterized as "the screwing you get for the screwing you got." And to some people's way of thinking is not much different from prostitution, except perhaps a lot more expensive and socially destructive in the long haul.db[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-11-2003]

For future reference, you may find it interesting that yada is also translated - be aware, be sure, consider, discern, mark, perceive, regard, take knowledge, understand and many more {see Young's Analytical Concordanc to the Bible, (Hebrew word list)}.Your mention of the recent battle is well taken. Your theory is sound, I think. Wish I'd thought of it myself. And in future, with your permission I shall develop it for my own use.It seems, however, that you may have confused the outcome of the battle: 3) You took the brother/nephew of the guy who whupped your ass. They had indeed been "whupped" but it was Uncle Abe who had actually saved them from the whupp-ass guy: that is - the invaders who had carried them away captive.Whether or not the king had been insulted by Abe's generosity, Lot was sheltering obvious aliens, agents whose stated purpose was to destroy the city. I am convinced that "all the men of the city" meant military men. And these must have suspected the strangers of being spies. I see this now thanks to you.I suspect that a proper understanding of "yada" in this context might be, "identify," or "interrogate." I also find it interesting that the military did not forcibly enter the house. i.e. They were civil and courteous, if not polite (unlike a mob of homosexual rapists). The sexual implication is simply unrealistic and the bit about the raped daughter was probably added later to further demonize the doomed inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; which another biblical author calls, "cities which the LORD overthrew without pity." {Jeremiah 20:16 RSV}db

Good catch. Shortly after I posted that, hurriedly, I was off to work and only later realized that I had confused the two stories, the one in Genesis with the one in Judges. Very similar stories. I figured it would be Rrhain who would catch it.I am not familiar with the Dead Sea scrolls. I am confident, however, that many of the stories we find in the Bible were embellished during the centuries in which they were transmitted orally. I am rather skeptical about the sexual suggestion in the Sodom story for several reasons.Lot lived among the people of Sodom and his Uncle Abe provided military succor for them. Would this have been the case if they were indeed the sort of guys portrayed in the story?The "LORD," intent upon the destruction of Sodom, had just hours before allied himself with Abe. This was a new arrangement. Before that Abe was defender of Sodom. Now, he has become a potential enemy of Sodom. His new ally, this War Lord, is on his way to investigate reports of what is going on in Sodom. He is not certain that the reports are true. "I am going down to see whether these reports are true or not. Then I will know." {19:21 Living Bible}.Sodom had only recenty, it seems, been attacked by five "kings" from the north, and been rescued by Abe. {Seems everyone and his uncle is out to get Sodom! (literally Soda, so it may have been a mining town, or a Pop Stand? )} At any rate, the enemies of the LORD are now the enemies of Abram, no matter that they were his protectorate only yesterday. Such is the nature of politics when the big boys sweep in with overwhelming numbers and superior firepower. Nothing has changed with regard to that. Today the LORD is looking for WMD. Then, he was looking for something else. He didn't say what.The author of Genesis may have intended to suggest that he was looking for an entire village of homosexual rapists, but then who can know the mind of God?! It is a good story if one's intent is to create loathing among the young boys who are being sent out to butcher the women and children of these beasts.nuff sed

Indeed! Then there are the sayings of Jesus; when he sends his disciples to raise followers in the towns of Israel. If a given town refuses to go along with Jesus' mission: He specifically levels this curse at Capernaum, one of his major hangouts; and claims that if he had ministered to Sodom as he had to Capernaum, it would still be standing. {Matt. 11:23,24}St. Peter suggests that the sin of Sodom was to "despise government." {2 Peter 2:10 See in context} He also mentions "the lust of defiling passion" {RSV} as one of the reasons to punish these people. But the primary motive for destruction seems to be their political dissidence. Peter is horrified that such people are not afraid to "speak evil" of dignitaries. And says that even though the agents (i.e. angels) do not complain to their superior (Lord), the critics ought to be caught and killed. {vs12} db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-12-2003]

I don't get that at all. He took off his "robe." Jerusalem Bible give this as "cloak." If you look at how the word (Heb. meil) is used in other contexts you will note that it is likely to be a cloak of office, a royal vestment. There is no suggestion that this is the only garment Jonathon was wearing. The sword is slung upon the girdle (a belt). Clearly outer wear. The act is one of honoring the recipient, like handing over one's jacket and gunbelt to a trusted friend (whom his father did not trust, remember). Jonathon was ceremoniously recognizing David as equal or superior to himself. He supported David's anointing (to the office of future king). That's why Saul hated David and that's why he didn't want his son associating with him. Men can love men in ways that women cannot understand. Men can empathize with men. Women can only sympathize. Especially in the context political intrigue, one does not confide in harem girls. Such a relationship is the kind which grows between men who fight together, side by side, risking their lives, or careers, together. Depending on each other for survival. As I recall, Jonathon saved David's ass on more than one occasion.Have you never had a buddy? Doesn't have to be anything more than that. David was known for taking any woman he fancied. If she were married, he'd kill the husband. He killed one of his best general's just to keep him from finding out that he'd been diddling his wife.I'm not saying that David couldn't have been bisexual but the evidence you put forward is, at best, inconclusive.db

My post was clear, concise, exegetic, and tolerant. Your response is reactionary and reveals that you are not thorougly familiar with the material you put forward in evidence. When you get rid of your coat and your belt, what else do you have? Stretch Belt? If you say so. No. I am not confusing the time table. But you would like verse 30 of chapter 20 to follow verse 4 of chapter 18. You cite the ceremony in which Jonathon passes a uniform and weapons to David (1 Samuel chapter 18 verse 4). The very next verse has David at the head of the army. (after the ceremony). If you had read the next four verses you would know why Saul hated David. It clearly states that David was immensely successful in battle and thus more popular than Saul. "And Saul eyed David from that day on." The very next day Saul made an attempt on Davids life. Irrelevant. It was Saul who insisted on keeping David at the palace. It was Saul who would not let David go home. It was Saul who made him commander of the army, dressed in Jonathon's robe, wearing Jonathon's belt and sword. If you insist. You must be confusing me with someone else. But look at the length to which you go to prove that it was romantic. He wouldn't have been.See verse 8 - "And Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him; he said, 'They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; and what more can he have but the kingdom.'"See verse 12 - "Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with him but had departed from Saul."Check the facts and get back to me.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-12-2003]

Here are the pertinent facts.

• David went out to meet Goliath wearing Sauls armour. He doffed it because it impeded his fighting style. David killed Goliath. Then the army, David and Jonathon included, attacked the Philistines.
• Saul is impressed and takes the Boy Wonder to live in the palace. Jonathon gives David his royal cloak and weapon. {The cloak is outerwear, probably a sort of royal blazer. The "girdle" is a gun (er... Sword) belt; NOT underwear (underpants were called "breeches")}. This exchange of battle gear had the effect of honoring David and putting him in appropriate uniform for the next step. Next verse ...
• David is installed at the head of the army. He is wildly successful and becomes more popular than the king. Which leads to the next step. Next verse.
• Saul attempts to kill David in the interest of national security (before he can become king). He tries again and again but son Jonathon always leaks the plan to David and David always escapes.
• Eventually Saul discovers who has been leaking state secrets. He verbally attacks his son, calling him sonofabitchmotherfucker because he is loyal to David; has chosen to prefer the future king over the incumbent. The surprising thing here is that Saul didn't kill him.

This is classical, royal intrigue. Even if, as you wish, Jonathon had stripped himself nude before David, that in itself would not have been considered a sexual thing. Saul stripped himself and hung out in the nude, with the prophets, all day. No one was shocked by that. The only question they asked was, "Is Saul a prophet too?"Mine is a straightforward interpretation. I heard that the first time.db

That, you know. That you have emphasized to the exclusion of all else. Jonathon does this because he is a just and law abiding citizen of Israel who is trying to protect a friend, national hero and legitimate heir to the throne, from murder. You dwell on that part enough for all of us.
Why do you deny the military ceremony and political intrigue? "Eye of the beholder."The military symbolism is clear enough. It is consistent with the tone of the text and integral to the story of David's promotion. Perhaps it would help if you thought of the sword as a gun. An instrument of death. BTW - The text clearly states that Saul ... stripped off his clothes and lay down naked ... {1Sam19:24} If the author thought Jonathon got naked, I'm sure he had the balls to say so. We have already explored those parts together. I'm sorry if you are not satisfied with my conclusions. I do not think those parts are insignificant. I do, however, think you are ignoring the circumstances surrounding those parts. Refusing, apparently, to read them in context. Apparently, it is irrelevant.Sometimes we must let go our favorite theories for inadequate evidence. Let it go Rrhain. Find other ways to grind your axe. You've been attacking your own team mates.db[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-14-2003]

Interesting you should say that. Those words sound close and warm to me. How about Charisma? Or Animal Magnetism. There is also, "Hero Worship," which may have played a part in Jonathon's fascination with David. I have experienced that sort of thing many times. Some people just naturally inspire awe in others. Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, richer, better looking? Whatever it is, some people seem destined to lead, rule, or otherwise command attention. They are "attractive."db

No. I missed it. Do you recall the post number? I Did see the recent PBS special on Sparta. Very interesting. But that sort of "man-love" doesn't appeal to me. Did you happen to see it? Perhaps Spartan would be the right term. Problem with these Greek allusions is that both Scythians and Spartans were primarily known for their war craft. I wonder how many *gay* men are apt to espouse that glory?I have *gay* friends and relatives but it's not for me. I'm sure there have always been people whose sexual orientation deviated from the norm, and if the Bible revealed a genuine homosexual or bisexual relationship I'd be glad to champion the fact. But as far as I know it doesn't. So what!? It's still a Good Book - chock full of sex and violence. The movie industry has only scratched the surface.Have you read Ezekiel's tale of the two Jewish hookers?db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

The context is war and political intrigue. "Little bit more"? What you are suggesting is a hell of a lot more. Can you see nothing intermediate? Can you not relate to how a "hetero" feels toward the men for whom he would fight and die? "in love" perhaps. Gay lovers? Unsubstatiated.RE: the military ceremony of passing the sword to David: Because it was the king's wish to make David head of the army. If Saul was so disgusted by his son's gay infatuation, then why would he honor David this way? Because he is working for the king. He's a government official, and he likes the Boy Wonder. The action was a military ceremony, ordered by the king. Jonathan needed no additional motivation. I'm sure he accepted the role gladly however, for he certainly liked the kid. See above. False characterization. Inaccurate interpretation. Read a few good translations: Notably: New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard, and Modern Language Bible. Saul is essential calling Jonathan a sonofabitch. Had he wanted to "directly state" he might have said, "you lie with him as with a woman." Strawman. Whether they were having sex is the question of this debate. There was, otherwise, plentiful political motive for calling the boy names. He was clearly opposing his father's agenda. From the Hebrew mad. The same term is used at 2 Samuel 20:8. It is variously translated as military coat; uniform; soldiers garment; and armour; [in addition to "garments."] I am not forgetting that they love each other. I do not ignore their relationship. I simply see it in a different light. I see no reason to interpret it as a sexual relationship. The context is one of war, political intrigue and attempted murder. That is motive enough for powerful emotions between men. To avoid understanding it in this context would be a mistake. a: Saul didn't say that.
b: You need more than one misinterpreted line in order to make your point. So far, this misinterpretation is the strongest thing you've got.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

Before I address the matter of your mother’s nakedness, I want to be sure that we have adequately addressed the other issues which have been brought up in this debate.When we began, you apparently believed that the robe mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:4 was something one puts on when coming out of the bath. You harped on the word girdle as if you thought it was underwear; And you referred to the garments as if Jonathan was getting naked. Then you imagined that transfer of the sword to David was intended as a phallic symbol; a metaphor of homosexual encounter.It seems you may now understand that it was a formal ceremony. Even so, you continue to deny the overall military context of the story. You assert that neither David nor Jonathan were soldiers. This tells me that you have not read the entire story.doctrbill writes:

quote:

---

The context {of the David and Jonathan story} is war and political intrigue.

---

According to this narrative, David had only recently come onto the field of battle and into their acquaintance. But there is another narrative which paints a different picture (1 Samuel 16:14-23). Here, Saul meets David, for the first time, at the palace. Saul is seeking a good musician and one of his talent scouts reports, . Like it or not, the war had been going on for some time. Jonathan was already a general, and a hero of that war.When David goes out to meet Goliath, Saul provides him with his own armor (1Sam17;38,39). The same word (mad) translated garments at 18:4. In this passage, Knit: is given for the Hebrew qashar also translated conspire, and work (treason). It apparently describes political intercourse, not sexual intercourse. The Hebrew word is different here but knit was satisfactory to the translator.Judges 20:ll describes the army of Israel "knit together as one man." Yet another Hebrew word which the translator understood to be satisfied by his choice of the English. The New American Standard gives this: Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. That’s how Jesus says one should love one’s neighbor. Jonathan was alaready a war hero and a general in his father Saul’s army. David was as "a man of war" and Saul’s "armour-bearer;" and Saul loved him greatly. They were both soldiers, fighting together on the day Goliath was killed. Long term army buddies? Perhaps not. National heroes who battled the Philistines together? Yes. If you believe the plain statements of chapter 16, then they must have met before the Goliath incident. Who is we? Jonathan was already a BMOC. It can be understood quite well without assuming they are homosexual. He doesn’t. in love ? Your words, which carry an implication not apparent in the script. Because it was the king's wish to make David head of the army. Saul’s the king. He presides. Jonathan is the former boy wonder (read the whole story) he is honored to do it. Have you any evidence to support this negation? Please check your facts. You haven’t read the whole story. And you don’t seem to understand how things work in the military. You should acquaint yourself with a time honored concept called: chain of command. Chain of command is understood. Chain of command is understood.*****For the benefit of onlookers I will briefly address the strawman which you have created from this casual comment I made when first joining in this debate:

quote:

---

Men can love men in ways that women cannot understand. Men can empathize with men. Women can only sympathize. Especially in the context political intrigue, one does not confide in harem girls. Such a relationship is the kind which grows between men who fight together, side by side, risking their lives, or careers, together. Depending on each other for survival. As I recall, Jonathon saved David's ass on more than one occasion.

---

You have spent an inordinate amount of time attacking the strawman you built from these straw. Here, from your last post, is a sampling of those attacks: I hope this post satisfies some that need to know.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?