Same sex marriage

messenjaH writes:

quote:

---

Explain how you "interpret" David as a homosexual.

---

His love for Johnathan "surpassed that of women." Haven't you read 1 and 2 Samuel?1 Samuel 18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.18:2: And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.18:3: Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.18:5: And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.What do you think this means? Jonathan's stripping of himself and giving his things to David is a pretty clear signal. Johnathon was standing there naked in front of David.I mean, look at the oath they took:1 Samuel 20:14: And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:20:15: But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.20:16: So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies.20:17: And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.What is that if not a declaration of love?In fact, Jonathan was so moon-faced over David that J's father, Saul, tries to snap him out of it:1 Samuel 20:30: Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?Now, is it because Jonathan is gay? No...Saul never liked David. Just to hammer home the point, David is offered one of Saul's daughters, Merab, but David turns it down. He is then offered a younger daughter, Michel, whom David only weds in order to be son-in-law to Saul, though Michel does love David...but notice that Saul is only doing this so that David might get entrapped and killed:1 Samuel 18:21: And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.And later on:1 Samuel 18:25: And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.But David survives...he rises up and kills 200 Philistines and brings back their foreskins (what is it with god and foreskins, anyway?)1 Samuel 18:27: Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.No, the problem was not that the love was between two men but because this would mean there is no heir.And let's look at how the two react:1 Samuel 20:41: And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.20:42: And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.And after Jonathan dies, David lets out this lamentation:2 Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.There aren't that many love stories in the Old Testament (the Song of Solomon isn't really a love story but an erotic story.) To deny the tale of David and Jonathan would be to do a disservice to the text.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

"what was being addressed is schraf's assertion that sex is only used for reproduction and pair-bonding in primates"

---

Maybe she did that in the past, I don't know, I haven't read the old exchanges. In the current thread, she DEFINITELY hasn't said that.

quote:

---

"exchanges for power or valuables (like food or grooming services) ARE the animal equivalent of prostitution."

---

And I wholeheartedly disagree that this is clear at all. First, I haven't found on the web anything about "exchange for services", and the article you referred to, as I explained to my satisfaction, doesn't show "exchange" at all, but primarily sex as reducer of conflict and facilitating relationships in the face of tension and competition.

quote:

---

" Or equal access to a cardboard box."

---

Riggggghhhht. See, this is the stretch. Read the report again. This is exactly the example that convinced me that it was inappropriate to compare this to prostitution. This is a perfect example where the sex is used as a reducer of tension, so that the two don't mind each other's presence when they both approach the new box. One of the bonobos is not giving a box, currently in posession, to another bonobo, so that sexual pleasure can be bought. It's a social tool to reduce tension, not an exchange. At least, that's the parsimonious explanation devised by the researcher to cover a variety of situations.

quote:

---

" and not for monogamous pair-bonding or procreation."

---

Pair-bonding in the sense of a monogamous, life-long partner? No. Facilitating social tiesand maintaining cohesion? YES! PRECISELY! EXACTLY! That's the theory that the article is arguing for.

quote:

---

"But there are close similarities in the exchanges of sex for gains in power, access to goods, and services."

---

The similarities aren't close at all to the human behavior, at least not in the reference you provided.If you have other references, let me know. I searched the web for a bit and found zip that I could read as supporting your position. Well, I found one site that said "bonobos practice prostitution", but it provided no evidence or citations to back the assertion up.

quote:

---

"Either way, I assume you found nothing to suggest that pleasure has nothing to do with why they do what they do, and that sex is only used for procreation and pair-bonding."

---

And, if you read what schraf has written, you'll see she doesn't claim this, either. You're adding on to what she said. Do you think that she's saying sex is for marriage and making babies, and that's it? I can confirm that she believes neither... You seem to portray sex "in its pure state" as solely about pleasure, and those who have "freed their mind" (yes, your words...) recognize this truth. Which is silly, and insulting. Or maybe you mean something by "its pure state" that I don't understand (what DOES that mean?).Sex did not evolve solely for pleasure - that's a side product. The pleasure aspect has evolved additonal side roles, and has been isolated through various measures, cultural and otherwise. But you seem to characterize reproduction and pair-bonding as the cultural inventions!Reproduction IS what sex is about, primarily, in biology. Pair-bonding IS a demonstrated consequence of sexual intercourse in a wide variety of animals (certainly many mammals, I don't know if birds have been studied). Your characterization of "free minded" people knowing the truth, that "pure" sex is only for pleasure is a purely philosophical standpoint.Now, what does this mean about whether or not Prostitution should be legal?Diddly-squat.

I'm certainly willing to take my lumps where I deserve it, and maybe I am on a couple of these biblical issues.I kind of wish you didn't go on at length to ME about the whole, Bible says nothing about homosexuality thingy. I totally understand that and I thought I made that clear.If not, let me repeat, I totally understand the ancient world (where the Bible was conceived) had no understanding of homosexuality. Interestingly enough, I was going to raise Sparta as an example to schraf in my next post.That said, I don't believe one is able to hate the sin, without the byproduct of hating the "sinner" (ie the person that practices the act). Thus--- let's say "assuming"--- the bible is criticizing homosexual acts, as a consequence it becomes a critic of homosexuality. That is the ONLY way in which I mean to say that the Bible is bigoted against homosexuals, as an outcome of its chastisement of homosexual sex acts.The REAL problem then is that "assumption." Does the Bible criticize homosexual acts.Clearly I get that the lesson of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality, BUT it was news to me it had nothing to do with sexuality at all! I totally fell for the "know" mistake. Thanks for the edification on that, your explanation makes sense.Your inability to find what M was talking about in Judges is because he missed his reference. I'm sure he meant Judges 19:22-29. Unfortunately for him it is is also about inhospitality to strangers. I feel pretty confident though that sex is the goal of these townspeople (which may explain why they raped the offered woman, while the people of Sodom did not).Now here is where the differences between you and I begin...It has been argued quite well that the first part is about ritual uncleanliness. I have not seen anything that suggests the latter part is only about ritual sex.What I have seen are deconstructions of WHY the Bible says what it says. Similar to the arguments you have given, these state that the proscriptions (especially given original terminology) were meant to separate Jews from the surrounding religions which utilized male prostitutes. There were like one or two religions which were specific thorns in the side of Judaism, and specifically involved male prostitutes.Thus the proscriptions were made against such acts, to distinguish Jew from nonJew and prevent possible intermingling of faiths (ie backsliding on Jehovah).While I can totally buy this from a deconstruction standpoint, I'm not sure how this carries over into an argument that those traditional proscriptions should be dropped now.If anything, couldn't someone from this faith, I'm looking at evangelicals here, say this kind of traditional restriction is more needed now than ever? That is, in order to keep them from intermingling with other faiths (or lack of faiths) and distinguish their own faith from others?I mean if we continue on the deconstruction route, we could discuss why the Hebraic people constructed a God who was unlike other Gods in that his name was unknowable, and unlike other gods shared power with no one else. This invention was necessary for the same reasons as those other proscriptions. So maybe the church today doesn't need to say there is only one god, and should accept other religions as equally correct?But this is not the only problem.I have not seen anything which puts the quotes from Corinthians or Timothy, into this same category (simply talking about male prostitution). If you have something on this... where the original terminology used to derive "abusing yourself with mankind" is suggesting only prostitution, I am interested in seeing it (or hearing about it).If anything it seems to me that by the time of Paul, perhaps the proscription had already lost its purpose in defending Judaism from a few of its immediate religious rivals, and was now a means of distinguishing the religion through moral practices.I am furthered in this opinion in that the Romans passage, pretty clearly has God using homosexual sex as part of his curse on those who stray. Granted he isn't saying those who do such things are straying, but it isn't quite a positive thing to say if you stray you'll end up having homosexual sex (along with other bad things).Again, I am open to new evidence on this. Simply right now, it still looks like homosexual sex (no matter the original reason) is still as sinful as thievery.Actually I am very interested in the Catholic church performing homosexual marriages. You've mentioned this and if it is true I think it sets a pretty huge precedent for Xtians that perhaps some proscriptions can be cast away.After all, Jesus was involved with casting away unnecessary rituals, which is why he was a pain to Jews at the time.------------------
holmes

I'm sorry but I am not wholly convinced that the passages you are talking about necessarily suggest David was a homosexual. And it is for the same reason I agree with you that much of what the Bible talks about in regards to homosexual acts is in reference to male ritual prostitutes.Given that time and place... especially that place and the people who lived there... love of one man for another is often seen as more than the love of a woman for the very fact that NO SEX is involved. It is PURE.This belief is still true in the cultures of those regions today and led to one awkward media mistake when they thought the "american Taliban" had a homosexual lover.His teacher, who in descriptions mr AT followed around just as David is described as doing, described their great love for each other... which led to the media fiasco.It is also not unknown to discard clothing to show one's servitude to another, and even embraces and kisses are exchanged between men.The passage reads to me like a passage that can be interepreted either way with great conviction.------------------
holmes

I'm certainly willing to take my lumps where I deserve it, and maybe I am on a couple of these biblical issues.I kind of wish you didn't go on at length to ME about the whole, Bible says nothing about homosexuality thingy. I totally understand that and I thought I made that clear.If not, let me repeat, I totally understand the ancient world (where the Bible was conceived) had no understanding of homosexuality. Interestingly enough, I was going to raise Sparta as an example to schraf in my next post.That said, I don't believe one is able to hate the sin, without the byproduct of hating the "sinner" (ie the person that practices the act). Thus--- let's say "assuming"--- the bible is criticizing homosexual acts, as a consequence it becomes a critic of homosexuality. That is the ONLY way in which I mean to say that the Bible is bigoted against homosexuals, as an outcome of its chastisement of homosexual sex acts.The REAL problem then is that "assumption." Does the Bible criticize homosexual acts.Clearly I get that the lesson of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality, BUT it was news to me it had nothing to do with sexuality at all! I totally fell for the "know" mistake. Thanks for the edification on that, your explanation makes sense.Your inability to find what M was talking about in Judges is because he missed his reference. I'm sure he meant Judges 19:22-29. Unfortunately for him it is is also about inhospitality to strangers. I feel pretty confident though that sex is the goal of these townspeople (which may explain why they raped the offered woman, while the people of Sodom did not).Now here is where the differences between you and I begin...It has been argued quite well that the first part is about ritual uncleanliness. I have not seen anything that suggests the latter part is only about ritual sex.What I have seen are deconstructions of WHY the Bible says what it says. Similar to the arguments you have given, these state that the proscriptions (especially given original terminology) were meant to separate Jews from the surrounding religions which utilized male prostitutes. There were like one or two religions which were specific thorns in the side of Judaism, and specifically involved male prostitutes.Thus the proscriptions were made against such acts, to distinguish Jew from nonJew and prevent possible intermingling of faiths (ie backsliding on Jehovah).While I can totally buy this from a deconstruction standpoint, I'm not sure how this carries over into an argument that those traditional proscriptions should be dropped now.If anything, couldn't someone from this faith, I'm looking at evangelicals here, say this kind of traditional restriction is more needed now than ever? That is, in order to keep them from intermingling with other faiths (or lack of faiths) and distinguish their own faith from others?I mean if we continue on the deconstruction route, we could discuss why the Hebraic people constructed a God who was unlike other Gods in that his name was unknowable, and unlike other gods shared power with no one else. This invention was necessary for the same reasons as those other proscriptions. So maybe the church today doesn't need to say there is only one god, and should accept other religions as equally correct?But this is not the only problem.I have not seen anything which puts the quotes from Corinthians or Timothy, into this same category (simply talking about male prostitution). If you have something on this... where the original terminology used to derive "abusing yourself with mankind" is suggesting only prostitution, I am interested in seeing it (or hearing about it).If anything it seems to me that by the time of Paul, perhaps the proscription had already lost its purpose in defending Judaism from a few of its immediate religious rivals, and was now a means of distinguishing the religion through moral practices.I am furthered in this opinion in that the Romans passage, pretty clearly has God using homosexual sex as part of his curse on those who stray. Granted he isn't saying those who do such things are straying, but it isn't quite a positive thing to say if you stray you'll end up having homosexual sex (along with other bad things).Again, I am open to new evidence on this. Simply right now, it still looks like homosexual sex (no matter the original reason) is still as sinful as thievery.Actually I am very interested in the Catholic church performing homosexual marriages. You've mentioned this and if it is true I think it sets a pretty huge precedent for Xtians that perhaps some proscriptions can be cast away.After all, Jesus was involved with casting away unnecessary rituals, which is why he was a pain to Jews at the time.------------------
holmes

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

message 95: "The "deep biological directives" of sex are..."
She lists ONLY procreation (PC) and pairbonding (PB). Sex for pleasure is reduced to a recent cultural myth, and other uses apparently just cultural baggage.message 96: "... confirms MY ARGUMENT that they [human males] are paying for fake intimacy and fake relationships..."
I added the emphasis for your benefit. Here she is clearly stating that it is her argument that men go to prostitutes for reasons of intimacy and NOT pleasure. This derives from her other theory as stated in 95, that only PC and PB drive human sexuality.She began this reasoning earlier, but not quite so well laid out. You can see I was already laying out my rejection of her theory in message 93. In that message I used the "freed their mind" wording--- and if you reread it I think you'll see this is true--- to suggest that PB, to the depth of emotion/importance she describes, is basically a form of "cultural baggage" (to use her words).My Bonobo reference was used originally to mirror her argument of the "naturalness" of something, based on its appearance in animals. It changed its purpose during the course of debate to more fully reject her "deep biological directive of sex" theory.I admittedly overheated when she offhandedly described the behavior of Bonobos as discussed in my reference as...message 94: "...giving a POTENTIAL MATE gifts to curry favor..."
Again, my emphasis for your benefit.Despite your rejecting the interpretation that I--- and it appears Rrhain--- have taken away from Bonobo research, you have to admit the sexual behavior described in that article had NOTHING to so with giving a POTENTIAL MATE gifts.If anything, to use her language, it appears that Bonobos may be exhibiting another "deep biological directive"... conflict resolution and means to regulate competition.At the very least, using sex for "distraction" (from the article) has nothing to do with an intent to bond (gain intimacy). If you are saying that "exchange" is not a viable term to describe the activity, I don't know what to say. This is purely an exercise in semantics.Clearly the article states that sexual activity is often prompted by inequalities in material goods, or social squabbles.HOW do the Bonobos "reduce conflict" and "facilitate relationships" in the face of these inequalities? They have sex with others (let's say potential rivals).This is similar to the "gift giving" schraf was alluding to, only it has nothing to do with POTENTIAL MATES. They curry favor and begin setting up relationships in their favor with potential rivals, by providing sexual pleasure.I define that as an exchange of power, your pleasure now for your favor later.This is similar to grooming as seen in other monkeys. Almost literally I scratch your back, if you'll scratch mine.Power exchange is about the closest animals get to the abstract world of economic exchange humans have set up to "reduce conflict" and "facilitate relationships" in the face of tension and competition. This is perhaps the largest difference between humans and Bonobos, when comparing their "power exchange" with our "prostitution."It is not the "owner" of material goods seeking out sexual pleasure, and "exchanging" it for sex. Bonobos who are without, or when they see a potential inequality, seek out rivals first and deliver an "exchange of power."This is not so disimilar to a human woman choosing to go into prostitution to make money, or to go into practice as (as you put it) a "gold digger". The difference is the sex giver has no one automatically seeking them out.Then again, in an environment where sex is going on alot, and is habitually given to rivals, why would any animal seek out sex and intentionally reduce their power? The former is what schraf's argument was. The latter I would agree with, unless by facilitating social ties you mean there is some uber-moral or intimate group emotional "feeling."Very simply Bonobos use sex, rather than shows of aggression and outright violence, as their primary mechanism for conflict resolution. That facilitates and maintains their group's cohesion. No, she says homosexuality is fine, so I know making babies is not all she thinks sex is about.However she does say that humans do not pursue sexual activity solely for pleasure. And apparently there is not only something repugnant about doing such a thing, it is unhealthy and harmful to our basic wiring if we do so and exchange money in the process.You can forget Bonobos if you want, I have also mentioned dolphins (which Rrhain has mentioned as well) for animals similar to humans that are known to have sex simply for pleasure.But why do we even have to go there? Have you not had ANY sexual encounter with a person (or your hand) where there was no intention of "bonding" with them?That is her assertion. Even when you think you are doing something sexual just for the pleasure, it is really for PC or PB reasons, and if at least one isn't involved with what you're doing there is the potential it will confuse you when you later try to PB. You have stitched together two different statements to create a position that I did not take. I agree it looks silly... but insulting?Again, it is the derisive tone against sex being performed for purely pleasurable reasons (whether sometimes or always) which betrays some form of prudishness. What's lesser if humans had sex just for pleasure?Anyhow, part of the error is mine. I looked back and that "in its pure state" is easily mistaken for meaning something else. Perhaps a bit of equivocation or at least sloppiness on my end.I have already stated sex is all about reproduction. Thus sex is about reproduction in its "purest sense."To me, all else is cultural baggage. It is true that there are bonding issues which are facilitated by sex. It doesn't seem odd that part of reproduction is chemical cues which allow beings to enjoy living around each other. But whether it is in "pairs" or in "groups", short term or long term, are wholly cultural.Studying HUMANS, shows us a myriad of bonding possibilities. Included in this mix are humans living basically solitary lives, having sex with those they do not bond with in any intimate sense, though bonding through other mechanisms for social cohesion.It also shows us that our bodies have been adapted for multiple partners, and the possibility our "official partners" may have mutiple sexual partners. Thus, we are not monogamous "by nature." Sure you can be, your body may even let you. But that is not our "set" status, according to "nature".Furthermore--- as a human being--- I have never felt the urge to have sex based on feelings of needing to reproduce, nor to get to know someone on a deep intimate level.Now perhaps I am not human--- and tell me if you experience something different--- but I have always felt like having sex with someone because doing so (the pursuit and success) gave me great pleasure.Sure I may have wanted to have a child, or may have known going into some situations that I would like to be with a person longer than that night. But the pleasure of having sex is why I pursued all sexual encounters.Schraf can cite as many resources on the utility of sex to bonding, the likelihood of bonding by having sex, the utility of bonding to successful reproductive cycles, and all the chemicals which are involved with the sexual process that keep someone stuck on someone else. It is cold, it is analytical, and it may even be accurate.Unfortunately that's like listing chemical contents of bread, and the benefits they give me, and saying that's why I want to eat it.No, the reason why I like to eat bread is that those chemicals make me feel pleasure, or when super hungry a loss of pain.Evolution (or Gods?) have naturally linked pleasure with necessary biological functions. A by-product? Give me a break. It is pleasure that ensures animals (or at least humans) pursue the things they must, just as pain helps us avoid most harms.This is what I meant by saying that in its "purist sense" sex is about the pursuit of pleasure. To the human experience that is EXACTLY what it's about.Especially given the free will that humans experience. While deep biological drives of procreation may get me horny, and let's say visual and chemical cues drive my horniness towards a specific girl, that is not how all sexual experiences go down.Sometimes I just want to feel better and knowing how good sex feels I jerk off (no PC or PB), or have a random sexual encounter (no PC or PB). And there is simply no confusion afterward. Even with prostitutes. Humans have the ability and do sometimes pursue sex purely for the physical gratification that stimulation of nerve endings leading to orgasm involves.To ask "What causes pleasure to humans?" is science. To ask "Why did that pleasure come to exist in humans?" is science.Acting on pleasure, regardless of its reason, is human life.To turn the scientific/analytical assessment of how or why humans do certain things, and extrapolate that into "oughts" which will dictate how pleasures may be pursued, is to replace God with Nature. It is a moralizing faith.Isn't this the same thing as shraf announcing that harm will come to men (of the US) by going against their inherent wiring to bond "intimately" with anyone they have sex with? Like men are trying to have something they think they can have but aren't allowed by the Laws of Nature.As she has said, it is her argument that men are seeking intimacy and not pleasure when they go to prostitutes (despite whatever they believe they feel).While some confused guys may make that mistake, on the whole men can figure out whether they want to see a woman once because they want to see her again, or to help get the sperms out then and there.As dating and one night stands tend to show up there are many more mistakes made thinking a sexual partner will be something more (with a change of heart after one cums), than the other way around.As mastrubation shows, some people skip the whole PB and PC thing altogether (too much bother) and take their own pleasure by the hand.Personally, I have no experience of the world schraf describes. Do you? For you is pleasure really the by-product of your seeking what nature wants, or the reason you choose to seek it? I completely agree. It was her contention that prostitution should be illegal. Schraf gave arguments based on its 1) not being natural (against PB and PC), and 2) not being healthy (given human nature driven by PB and PC alone), and 3) being dangerous (given the nature of prostitution as a commercial enterprise).I refuted her arguments 1 and 2 using the same arguments she has used against those who say that homosexuality is 1 or 2. This included examples of animals, which practice sexuality for reasons other than PC and PB. Whether the Bonobo practices are close to human prostitution is not essential, although I do believe it is similar. Dolphins are known to practice sex just for pleasure.I refuted 3 using references to studies of prostitution. That includes its history and cross-cultural references.I do not know why schraf has not bothered looking at these references or acknowledging them with at least a coherent rebuttal.I have become upset that shraf repeated claims which have already been challenged, used negative "generalizations" about males, and--- what started the whole mess in this thread--- used arguments to defend homosexuality which were very similar to the ones she blew off from me to defend prostitution.Obviously, this has been going on a while, but this gives you a good overview.If you are interested in Bonobo research, I'll try and dig up some more references, or at least places you can go to get articles and documentaries. Maybe Rrhain knows of some links to the subject. I saw at least two documentaries while I was in Europe (either the discovery channel or national geographic).I still find it odd that people who seem so up on mammal and primate behavior (especially with evolutionary connotations) act like I am making this up or something.------------------
holmes

I hate to mention this, because the rest of your post was interesting, but in Sodom the daughter was NOT raped.This is one of the chilling aspects the Bible holds for me. It was the "good guy" that offered his daughters to be raped, the "bad guys" refused. If they had raped the daughters the passage seems to suggest that Sodom may very well have been spared.Brrrrrr.I found Rrhain's interpretation highly interesting. It was the fact that the "men of Sodom" used the word "know", and that the father then offered his daughters for sex which made me feel they had come for sex with the strangers.The idea that they came for a nonsexual "interrogation" (as you and Rrhain have suggested), and that the father's instinct was to offer his daughters up for rape as a bribe (instead of something lesser), makes that whole section even more seedy.In Judges 19:22-29 the same scenario is essentially reenacted, only the "bad guys" rape the woman offered to them.The similarity between these two passages also helped reinforce the idea in my mind that the men of Sodom came to rape. They certainly meant it in Judges.I am wondering if you or Rrhain have seen any affect on translations, or ongoing disputes about translations, based on what has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?------------------
holmes

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

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Your inability to find what M was talking about in Judges is because he missed his reference. I'm sure he meant Judges 19:22-29. Unfortunately for him it is is also about inhospitality to strangers. I feel pretty confident though that sex is the goal of these townspeople (which may explain why they raped the offered woman, while the people of Sodom did not).

---

But there is so much that is different between these two stories.Judges 19 starts off with a Levite who takes a concubine. The concubine then "plays the whore" with him and goes back to her father's house. After four months, the man goes to get his concubine and she and her father conspire to keep the Levite there..."Here, before you go, have something to eat." "Oh, but now it's late and coming on dark. Stay the night." That sort of thing. Finally, he gets sick and tired of the delaying tactics and leaves when it's late. He gets to Jebus, "which is Jerusalem," but he and his servent agree that since it is not "of the Israelites," they won't stay there but go on to Gibeah, which is of the tribe of Benjamin.When they get there, they have no place to stay but are in the streets and are taken in by an old man. The men of the city have been carousing and drinking ("making their hearts merry") when they decide to go pester this old man, saying that he should bring out the stranger "so that we may know him." The master of the house offers his daughter and the concubine. But rather than getting a harsh response, the men are simply described as such:Judges 19:25: But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.She passes out at the door and the next morning, he barks at her that they're to be going, but she doesn't respond. So he picks her up, put her on an ass, and they went home...whereupon he kills the concubine, divides her into twelve pieces, and sends each tribe of Israel a piece.Now, you will notice that Judges uses the word "know" twice...the one in Judges 19:25 clearly means sex but here is the other one:Judges 19:22: Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.This is a direct parallel to the phrasing used in Genesis 19.Now here's the thing: The phrasing used in Judges 19:22 is not the same as that used in Judges 19:25. Remember when I talked about "know" needing to be phrased in a specific way in order to mean sex? We once again see this distinction. When Judges 19:25 wants to talk about sex, it uses "know" in a certain way which it does not use in the previous passage.So what makes people think the two passages are saying the same thing?

quote:

---

While I can totally buy this from a deconstruction standpoint, I'm not sure how this carries over into an argument that those traditional proscriptions should be dropped now.

---

Who's saying they shouldn't be? It would appear that at least here in the US, that proscription against using sex for religious purposes has been wiped out. Do you know of any places of worship that utilize sex in their rituals?The commandment is clear: Don't have sex with temple prostitutes. Fine...as soon as I find one, I'll be sure not to have sex with him.

quote:

---

I am furthered in this opinion in that the Romans passage, pretty clearly has God using homosexual sex as part of his curse on those who stray.

---

But again, Romans isn't talking about gay people. The word Paul uses, "arsenkoitai," is a literal conglomeration of the words for "male" and "temple prostitute." I don't know how much more direct you can be. The same word is used in Timothy.

quote:

---

Actually I am very interested in the Catholic church performing homosexual marriages. You've mentioned this and if it is true I think it sets a pretty huge precedent for Xtians that perhaps some proscriptions can be cast away.

---

The book you are looking for is Same-Sex Marriage in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. It includes the actual ceremonies used.Here are some examples:Here's an example, from The Content of Historic Same-Sex Unions:10. SIANI 966 [thirteenth century] [Greek]Order for Solemnization of Same-Sex Unioni
Those intending to be united shall come before the priest.shall place his hand on the Gospel, and the second on the hand of the firstiv
Lord our God and ruler.who didst commend the union of thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchusdo Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one another and abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their livesv
Grant them unashamed faithfulness, true love.vi
accept now these Thy servants N. and N to be united in spirit and faithto prosper in virtue and justice and in sincere lovevii
that they be joined together more in spirit than in fleshix
And they shall kiss the holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.This ritual ends with a kiss, you will notice.Here's another ritual documented (from The New Republic review of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe):Office for Same-Sex Union[Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin]i.The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:ii.In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.
For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That these thy servants, N. and N., be
sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of
their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment
of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and
sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord....
Have mercy on us, O God."Lord, have mercy" shall be said three times.iii.The priest shall say:Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.iv.Another Prayer for Same-Sex UnionO Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.v.Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.Again, it is sealed with a kiss.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm sorry but I am not wholly convinced that the passages you are talking about necessarily suggest David was a homosexual.

---

Again, the concept of homosexuality didn't exist at the time. Assuming their relationship was sexual, I doubt either David or Jonathan would have called themselves such.But the idea that their relationship was simply Platonic is a huge imposition on the text. If this had been an opposite-sex couple, it would be declared one of the greatest love stories in the Old Testament. Except for the fact that they both live, it's practically Romeo and Juliet: "I love you but my family doesn't, so we'll get married in secret whereupon circumstances will put you in mortal danger."And remember what Jonathan does: The guy strips down before his beloved, the souls of which the Bible describes over and over again as being "knit" as one. If you read the text with the eyes of one from the period, that is a highly symbolic act. It is not just an example of Jonathan "humbling" himself. When he gives his sword to David, that really means what it seems like it might mean. He has offered his masculinity to David while standing before him completely naked. If that isn't a statement of sexual intimacy, what more do you need? "And David thrust his loins upon his beloved Jonathan"? Yeah, that would certainly get the idea across but suddenly we've leapt into the Song of Solomon when we were trying to describe a great love story.

quote:

---

Given that time and place... especially that place and the people who lived there... love of one man for another is often seen as more than the love of a woman for the very fact that NO SEX is involved. It is PURE.

---

Not at all. While Plato had his concepts about "purity of love," that was not the case in this time. Plato comes much, much later than the authors of Judges.

quote:

---

This belief is still true in the cultures of those regions today and led to one awkward media mistake when they thought the "american Taliban" had a homosexual lover.

​

His teacher, who in descriptions mr AT followed around just as David is described as doing, described their great love for each other... which led to the media fiasco.

---

Did they do it while naked? When one's father tried to kill each other, did they cry in each other's arms?Again, if this had been an opposite-sex couple, we'd all be absolutely sure they were secret lovers. But because they're the same sex, people cannot grasp the idea that maybe, just maybe, they were in love.

quote:

---

It is also not unknown to discard clothing to show one's servitude to another, and even embraces and kisses are exchanged between men.

---

Not just discard clothing. The guy gets completely naked and hands his sword over. Again, if he were doing it in front of a woman, we'd all see the symbology there. But because it's in front of a man, we refuse to consider it. Nope, nope, nope...can't possibly be because they're in love. It's "appeasement behaviour" or "humbling behavioiur." Anything but sexual behaviour.This sounds very much like the naturalists who can't admit that animals might ever engage in homosexual sex because they like it. Anything except pleasurable, sexual behaviour.

quote:

---

The passage reads to me like a passage that can be interepreted either way with great conviction.

---

Which brings me to my original statement:The Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality as we understand it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

doctrbill responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

You're right. My phrasing was not actually saying what I had meant it to say. Sodom was saved by Abram and his army.

quote:

---

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}

---

And interestingly, whenever Sodom is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, the concept of sex is never mentioned. It's hard to pin down the precise sin of Sodom, but the passages that do list its behaviour are all based upon the concept of inhospitality.Sodom was a rich city that did nothing to support the surrounding inhabitants.Ezekiel 16:48: As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.16:49: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.16:50: And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.So where's the sex? "Committed abomination"? Oh, please. So many things are abomination, how does this become sex without someone who hasn't already decided that it is so?And this statement is said in a great rebuke of Jerusalem:Ezekiel 16:51: Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done.So does this mean that Jerusalem is filled with gay people, too? And that they're not just having sex, but they're having kinky sex at that?Or perhaps "abominations" is something more generalized?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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]

Actually I understood that the overall backstory differed between Genesis and Judges. I simply meant that the telling and basic "plot points" were the same.Haha... I guess you could say that I was analyzing the Greatest Story Ever Told, from work I've done as a script analyst/consultant.If anything--- if I undertand correctly how you've just interpreted Judges--- you have returned them to being a similar telling.Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you are saying that in Judges, as in Genesis, a group of townsmen come to "meet/judge/interrogate" a male stranger, and then the father's natural reaction is to bribe them with the rape of his duaghter or wife?Brrrrrrrrr. I'm puzzled why women ever want to be Xtians.That said, I feel we are arguing past each other on some points.You keep telling me that the Bible doesn't label anyone a homosexual, or criticize homosexuality because they didn't have that concept (and certainly not such terminology). I wish you wouldn't do this, because I am well aware of that fact.I tried to explain that I only use the word "homosexual" as a convenient placeholder for those that practice specific same sex acts (whether in ritual or not). And IF the Bible condemns those acts as a whole (to prevent people from attending male prostitutes) then by consequence it would affect homosexuals as we understand that word today, whether there are temple prostitutes or not.Now this is the crucial point, and this is all that really needs to be made clear. From what I have read (of people debating original editions of the Bible) not all of these passages, particularly Romans and Corinthians and Timothy and perhaps the second Leviticus reference do not use the term for male prostitute.It is true that they describe actions that would be involved with such ritual sex, but it was a broad proscription such that no member of the tribe would mistakenly participate in such practices (ie removing excuses) and distinguish themselves by this proscription (like many of the other countless proscriptions Jews must live by).If it is one of these ordinary daily proscriptions of behavior which make them distinct(like touching a woman that is menstruating is unclean), then there is no logical reason to argue for its removal (or people excepting ts removal).I want to make this clear. I am not saying this. I am saying this is what has been discussed. And it sounds like a reasonable interpretation and conclusion.As you do seem very knowledgable, are you telling me that these guys saying those passages describe acts and don't always use the specific term for male prostitute are lying, or somehow mistaken?I suppose you have the advantage as I happen to trust what you say. But boy if you tell me that's true and then I get burned repeating what you say... I'll pinch you so hard!Just kidding.Anyhow, I think you also sold me short on my interpretation of David. Or should I say MY interpretation? My point was that I thought your analysis and analyses I've heard based on the culture of the time and place (which made it not a "homosexual as we define it today" relationship), sounded equally plausible.It was a little disingenuous to say because John Walker and his teacher didn't do exactly the same thing as David and co that my point wasn't valid.If Walker's father had died, I would guess that they might hold each other and cry. Why not? Haven't you seen clips of men holding each other and crying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine after a family member is lost?Naked? Well I haven't seen totally naked. But stripping down and handing over arms was not as unusual back then (to show obedience) as it would be thought of today.What seems to be happening here, is that both sides are coming at the story with an imposition of a different culture. If I assume a predominately Greek culture was the environment that held sway there, your interpretation is the most convincing. But if it was what today is considered an "arabic" culture, then I think the other interpretation is valid. Just as if this was set in Feudal Japan, or the jungles of Africa it would have yet other valid interpretations.Do you have insight as to which culture more likely held sway in that region and at that time? If it was Greek, then I think your interpretation holds a lot more water.I also should say that I have no particular desire to see the Bible saying one thing or the other. I have obviously been hobbled by the bias of English translations (and my lack of knowledge of the original languages) which have been taught as "homo-phobic". But to get to the meat of what was meant, by reading from people who study original versions as you do, I am totally openminded about the conclusion.So fire away at those questions I've asked above. Those are what separate your interpretation of the original document, from other people's interpretations that I have read (and yes they say they are using the original language).But please don't kill the messenger (or the devil's advocate)? I admit their interpretation still sounds the most convincing, but I can go either way. No pun intended.The same-sex marriage (or union) ceremonies were fascinating. Thank you very much.While they certainly prove that Xtianity has been traditionally flexible on same sex relationships, it raise the spectre of culture again.Noticing the dates and the language (specifically references to Bacchus), it made me wonder how much of this incorporation into Xtianity was a shifting from midEast culture, to Greek culture?The wording sounded downright pagan and against something that would have grown directly from the Jewish traditions. Much like the Catholic church's adoption/translation of local Gods as saints as well as allowing new "holidays" for ease of converting the populace.Actually, didn't early temples and rites to Bacchus include male prostitution?When and Why did these same sex unions by the church not make it to the present time? Was there a specific church ruling--- and reasoning--- behind it?Look forward to your answers.------------------
holmes

screwed up the post, read the next one instead.[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-12-2003]