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

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

You might as well be disgusted at how Christians show hatred towards child molesters or people committing beastiality.

---

Why is it some people can't talk about gay people without comparing them to child molestors or animal abusers?I'm surprised someone hasn't brought up the "Next thing you know, they'll try to make it so you can get married to your car!" argument...because that make so much sense, you know...allow two people who are in love, are both adults, and aren't close kin get married and the most obvious "next step" is marriage to a car!It truly says a lot about the person when he can't discuss a loving relationship.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Problem lies with hospital policies, not marriage laws.

---

How does one convince the hospital that you should be allowed to visit the person being taken care of when said person is incapable of letting them know?Why must one set of people get a bazillion different legal contracts (which the family can contest) while another set can simply "get married" and have everyone respect it?The problem lies not with the hospital polices but with the marriage laws. Marriage provides the legal contract of next-of-kin. That is what is recognized in so many places. Why is it a concern of anybody else who somebody wants to put into that position?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll writes:

quote:

---

So... once again... two grown men are "adopting" one another?

​

I don't wanna say that sounds gay, but...

---

Well, I should hope not! What sort of society do we want to have when one person adopts his sexual partner? Don't we call that "molestation"?No, it doesn't matter if you're adults. Parents having sex with their children is generally frowned upon. Even sibling sex isn't looked on kindly.I still don't understand why anybody should care about other people's marriages. Why is it that my sister marrying someone doesn't raise an eyebrow but my attempt to marry the same person is something to panic over?I really wish somebody could explain to me what, specifically, will happen if people of the same sex are allowed to get married other than an increase in family tensions over who is sat next to whom at the rehearsal dinner and an increase in lawyers' paychecks over the long haul as gay people get to experience divorce.How does couple X getting married affect couple Y's relationship?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How does one convince the hospital that you should be allowed to visit the person being taken care of when said person is incapable of letting them know?

---

​

Close family and friends should be able to give permission.

---

Yeah, right. The family is very often antagonistic toward their gay members. There are many stories of one member of a same-sex couple getting sick and the other partner being barred from the hospital at the request of the family. How do you convince the hospital that the family is going against the wishes of the patient when the patient can't talk?No, "close friends" don't count. That's all the partner of a gay person is: A "good friend" who is not allowed to make any decisions for the one being cared for. And since power of attorney can be contested fairly simply by the family, it doesn't have the force of marriage.

quote:

---

Indeed IMO it should not be neccesary to even be married to visit a loved one in hospital.

---

What about security? The point behind restricting visitors is to make sure that random strangers don't just wander into people's rooms.

quote:

---

For instance, here in the UK, many couples are not married, but take on partners. A partner (as far as I know) is allowed to visit the sick person, same should go for a gay partner.

---

So why not allow gay people to get married if you're going to do that?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why must one set of people get a bazillion different legal contracts (which the family can contest) while another set can simply "get married" and have everyone respect it?

---

​

Has nothing to do with respect.

---

Logical error: Equivocation.You seem to think I am using "respect" to mean "holding in high moral esteem" or some such. Instead, I am talking about having institutions follow the rules. When a person is in the hospital and cannot make decisions for himself, it is up to the next of kin to do so. Power of attorney generally works, but it is commonly contested by the family and on many occasions, the hospital simply refuses to accept it.How many hospitals do you know who routinely deny spouses?

quote:

---

And its not a 'bazillion' legal contests.

---

First, I said "contracts," not "contests."Second, it is, indeed. Do you know how many individual contracts a person would need to sign with someone in order to even approach what comes along with marriage? Aside from things like power of attorney, there are things like adoption, property division, and insurance. And that doesn't even begin to get into the things that can never, ever be gained except through marriage: A citizen of the US who marries someone who is not a US citizen can then sponsor that person for citizenship. No interpersonal legal contract can let you do that.

quote:

---

And why if you set up a legal 'partnership' should there by any complications ?

---

Because those partnerships do not give all the rights of marriage.Because those partnerships are not recognized across state or international lines. For example, Vermont has a "civil union." There was a case in Texas where a couple had gotten this "civil union" in Vermont and wanted to have it formally dissolved in Texas (it seems the Vermont laws are that anybody can get a "civil union" but to get it dissolved requires living in Vermont at least a year.) The Texas court system refused to do so because if they did, that would indicate that Texas recognized the "civil union" as having any sort of legitimacy...and since Texas forbids same-sex marriage, they couldn't have that in any way, shape, or form.Why not just let gay people get married?

quote:

---

However to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples introduce complications.

---

How? This is where I asked for specifics. What specific problem is there?

quote:

---

Forinstance we could go into the whole 'adoption' debate,

---

What problem? There are plenty of heterosexual couples where she is fertile but he isn't so they go to a sperm donor, she carries the child, and he adopts the baby. What is so unusual about extending this to same-sex couples? She obviously can't impregnate her partner, so they go to a sperm donor, she carries the child, and she adopts the baby.Same thing with surrogacy. There are plenty of heterosexual couples where he is fertile but she isn't so they get a surrogate who carries the child and she adopts the baby. What is so unusual about extending this to same-sex couples? He obviously can't impregnate his partner, so they get a surrogate who carries the child and he adopts the baby.

quote:

---

thus if a gay couple get married, should they receive EXACTLY the same legal rights as a hetrosexual married couples.

---

Precisely.What's the big deal?What, specifically, is so horrible about letting people of the same sex getting married?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it doesn't matter if you're adults. Parents having sex with their children is generally frowned upon. Even sibling sex isn't looked on kindly.

---

​

Aagh, here we have morals

---

You're missing the point. Letting same-sex couples "adopt" one another as a substitute for marriage doesn't help...it makes things worse. Marriage is a legitimization of a sexual relationship. Sex is forbidden between adopter and adopted.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I still don't understand why anybody should care about other people's marriages. Why is it that my sister marrying someone doesn't raise an eyebrow but my attempt to marry the same person is something to panic over?

---

​

Its all down to morals and the association of marriage with a religious ceremony.

---

Who is trying to force any religion to do something it doesn't want to do? I notice that even though there are many religions that actually do marry people of the same sex, there is still no legal marriage for same-sex couples. It's all going through the legislative/judicial processes of civil government.And doesn't governmental morality require that people be treated equally under the law? In the United States, there's a Constitutional Amendment that requires it.

quote:

---

Christians, Muslems ect find homosexuality a sin, thus immoral, and the association of a sinfull act with what they believe to be 'Goodness' in that regard is absurd.

---

Who cares? The government, at least in the US, has nothing to do with religion. People who want a religious marriage can find plenty of religions who will perform the service (many of them Christian, too), and the only thing left is the civil recognition of equality under the law.

quote:

---

In an purely athiest society, is there going to be a difference between a legal marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man, no.

---

What does atheism have to do with anything?Wouldn't a religious society that recognizes the need for equality under the law also not have a problem with same-sex marriage? Especially if they are a pluralistic society and recognize religious freedom?

quote:

---

It honestly doesn't make a difference (with exception of some legal issues), because as the end of the day you can get divorced and married as many times as you feel fit.

---

So why all the fuss over same-sex marriage when nobody is trying to make any religion do anything it doesn't want to do?

quote:

---

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

---

That's all marriage is in a legal sense for those who do believe in god, too. For those who do believe in god, they'll have the ceremony in a church and there are plenty of churches (Christian ones, at that) who will marry people of the same sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I really wish somebody could explain to me what, specifically, will happen if people of the same sex are allowed to get married other than an increase in family tensions over who is sat next to whom at the rehearsal dinner and an increase in lawyers' paychecks over the long haul as gay people get to experience divorce.

---

​

Well the issue is in the definition of marriage.

---

What is the definition of marriage if not the joining of two people?This doesn't answer the question. What, specifically, will happen?

quote:

---

A bond between a man and a woman. Yes, we can change it to a bond between 2 people if we care, but perhaps 60 years from now, 3 people really love their relationship, they then want to all get married to each other.

---

You mean like how nearly 40 years ago, we changed it to a bond between two people of any race from what it used to be where it was a bond between two people of the same race?If race doesn't matter when it comes to marriage, why does sex matter?

quote:

---

Why not ?

---

I will grudgingly answer this for the question of number has nothing to do with the question of sex. Why not continue the silly analogy and say that if we allow people of the same sex to get married, what's to stop us from letting people get married to a goat or a car as if they are so obviously connected to the bonds formed between two people.That said, the reason why number is different is because that actually will require changes in the way marriage is regulated. When you marry one person, you only have one next of kin. The property is joint between you and one other person. Any governmental benefits go to the singular spouse and are calculated with regard to supporting a single person (though whether or not they are calculated well is another question).To make that a contract among more than two people makes things different. Who gets the property? How do benefits get distributed? Suddenly we need to decide if "spousal benefits" need only be given as if there were a single spouse or if each spouse is deserving of something. On the federal level, since marriage allows immigration rights, a marriage between two people allows only one person to immigrate at any given moment. With plural marriage, you can get a whole bunch of people at the same time who are now "spouse" to the citizen and claiming immigration status.Not restricting marriage on the basis of sex changes nothing about the way marriage is administrated. Not restricting it on the basis of number changes a plethora of administrative things.

quote:

---

Why does it have to be limited to 2 people ?

---

It doesn't have to be, but the implications of expanding marriage to more than two actually causes changes in how marriage will be handled. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address those things. I'm simply pointing out that same sex marriage changes nothing while plural marriage does.

quote:

---

Eventually you pull away from the original concept of Marriage.

---

You mean like how you had to be of the same religion and race in order to get married....

quote:

---

more lawyers.. need I say more ?

---

Yes, because you haven't answered the question.Letting people of the same sex get married does not add more lawyers. In fact, since same-sex couples will no longer need to fake marriage through things like power of attorney, it will reduce the lawyerly influence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How does couple X getting married affect couple Y's relationship?

---

​

How does you getting your MBA at a University differ from me buying mine on the net for $100 ?

---

Non sequitur.This sentence no verb.Care to answer the question, please? How does couple X getting married affect couple Y's relationship?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Hmm yeah, I like the idea of thinking that 4/5th of my school friends wont be sharing Heaven with me. Very conforting.

---

So much so that you seem to think that you're going to be in heaven rather than those 4/5 of your friends.What makes you think you won the cosmic lottery over which god really exists?

quote:

---

Funny but its ok to say 'stealing is wrong' , but please dont say 'homosexuality' is wrong, because there you're just a bigot.

---

Yep.Stealing actually harms somebody. Being gay doesn't. Notice how you don't go around claiming that people who eat, say, chocolate covered orange (ewww!) need to be quarantined from the rest of society lest they infect the rest of us with their disgusting habits. Why? Because it doesn't matter if somebody else eats chocolate covered orange. Nobody's making you eat it if you don't want to. You are free to have any dessert you want or even no dessert at all if that's what makes you happy.People who obsess over things that have no effect upon them need to consider why they're so upset over nothing.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM![This message has been edited by Rrhain, 09-13-2003]

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yeah, right. The family is very often antagonistic toward their gay members. There are many stories of one member of a same-sex couple getting sick and the other partner being barred from the hospital at the request of the family. How do you convince the hospital that the family is going against the wishes of the patient when the patient can't talk?

---

​

This is a bit of a extreme hypothetical situation,

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Do you seriously think that there are few cases of the families of gay people excluding the partner out of hatred for the child being gay? You really need to do some more research.

quote:

---

Should a man choose for a close friend (non gay) or partner to be responsible for his life (if he cant talk) he should be able to appoint such a person over his family.

---

It's called "marriage." Marriage creates a next-of-kin relationship.

quote:

---

There should be some form of legal guardianship he can setup with a hospital IF he doesn't want it to be his family.

---

There is. It's called "marriage."

quote:

---

There are many cases where people dont want their family or spouses to be the ones responsible for them though.

---

It's called "divorce."

quote:

---

quote:

---

What about security? The point behind restricting visitors is to make sure that random strangers don't just wander into people's rooms.

---

​

Restriction of visitors could be done by family members

---

But that's precisely the problem! The family members are restricting the partner of the one in the hospital.

quote:

---

spouse

---

But gay people can't get married, so they don't have a spouse and the family has all the rights.

quote:

---

someone 'set-up' with the hospital above to be a guardian.

---

That requires the good will of the hospital. Remember, just because you have power of attorney doesn't mean the hospital accepts it.

quote:

---

As a programmer I know it would be very simple to write a global database for a hospital to specify guardianship.

---

Excuse me? Do you really think it is better to assign a complete stranger to be the guardian of a person than to allow people of the same sex to get married?

quote:

---

quote:

---

When a person is in the hospital and cannot make decisions for himself, it is up to the next of kin to do so. Power of attorney generally works, but it is commonly contested by the family and on many occasions, the hospital simply refuses to accept it.

​

How many hospitals do you know who routinely deny spouses?

---

​

I dont actually know of many hospitals that dissallow gay partners, but then I dont live in the USA.

---

I know plenty. You should do more research. The entire point behind same-sex marriage is precisely situations like this: Refusal to recognize the partner.

quote:

---

Having done a quick search on google however there have been lawsuits against hospitals denying a non 'legal' partner rights for visitation.

---

Precisely. Do you seriously think a hospital would deny a legally married spouse?

quote:

---

Ok, so now the problem is still going to be accepting a gay marriage as legal from country to country or even state to state. Allowing gay men to marry in the USA would still be an issue if they move to the UK.

---

Indeed, but we take the battles as we can. In the US, the Constitution guarantees "full faith and credit" to the contracts created in other states. If you get married in one state, the other states recognize that (in general). If you get divorced in one state, the other states recognize that. That's why Nevada became such a haven for divorce since it was very easy to get one there.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not just let gay people get married? .... 'specifics'

---

​

Legally, just too easy to abuse the system.

---

How? How is it any easier to "abuse the system" when the people are of the same sex than when they are of opposite sex? Be specific. You went on and on and on and didn't provide a single specific reason. What is it about an opposite-sex couple that makes them more or less capable of signing a piece of paper?

quote:

---

Any 2 guys that see a financial benefit to getting married, could do so.

---

And? How is that any different from any two people of opposite sex seeing a financial benefit to getting married and doing so?Specifics. I need specifics. What does the sex of the people involved in getting married have to do with anything?What [I][B]SPECIFICALLY[/i][/b] would change?

quote:

---

Tax benefits, Visa situation ect. Any idea how easy it would be to get a greencard in the USA, or Residency in the UK, if all you have to do is move in with someone for a year, and sign a few documents ?

---

And how is that any different from a man marrying a woman?

quote:

---

Before you ask the question, 'how is this any different from a man marrying a woman' , well the answer is stigma.

---

Oh, please. You're really not saying that's the problem, are you? Do you really think there is no stigma to two guys getting married? Everybody is going to think they're gay.Besides, it happens all the time already. It's called a "marriage of convenience" and one of the ways the immigration service investigates it is to look into the sex life of the married couple. If you don't have sex, then you need to explain why not.So if two guys try to get married, they're going to have to explain to the immigration service why they're not having sex.

quote:

---

Most people would prefer to only be married once, however a straight guy that marries another man (purely on paper) would not have this, because if he is straight, everyone will see the 'joke'.

---

Why would they? He married another guy! Obviously he's gay. And if he's an immigrant, there's a chance the INS will be knocking on his door and asking all of his friends about his sex life with his spouse.

quote:

---

Think perhaps how many mexicans immigrants would be 'gay' on paper if they we're allowed entrance into the USA ?

---

You know nothing about the Mexican machismo, do you?

quote:

---

And yes, I know it does happen where a woman marries a man just for a visa (or vice versa), but I believe this might escalate significantly with fay marriages.

---

Proof. I need proof. Not your speculation, not your wild assertion. I need specifics.

quote:

---

Married gay couples would also have to immediately be allowed to adopt children, which I'm sure you have no problems with, but many do.

---

Irrelevant. Whether or not people have a problem with same-sex couples adopting has no bearing on what would specifically happen if gay people were allowed to get married.I hate chocolate-covered orange. It's disgusting. But how does your eating it affect me?Be specific. How does person X's adoption of child Y affect person Z?

quote:

---

Different issue.

---

Irrelevant issue.

quote:

---

Is it ok to have a child grown up with 2 fathers instead of a father and a mother.

---

Yes. All studies show that children raised in same-sex households have identical outcomes to those raised in opposite-sex households. When the same-sex marriage battle was being fought in Hawaii, the state's own witnesses couldn't explain any reason why adoption was a concern.

quote:

---

From a Christian point of view, which ultimately my opinion is going to be from, I'm opposed to it,

---

Who cares? Your religion is not a basis for government. Equal protection under the law and freedom of religion preclude it. If you want to restrict marriage on the basis of sex, you're going to need a reason that doesn't invoke god.

quote:

---

just as I am opposed to legalisation of anything I believe is sinfull.

---

Same problem. Your religion doesn't enter into it. If you don't want to get married to someone of the same sex, then don't. Nobody is forcing you. But why should your personal squick factor be allowed to determine who somebody else is allowed to marry?

quote:

---

The legal complications I mentioned above really is not the basis of my argument.

---

What legal complications? Everything you claimed already exists with regard to heterosexual marriage. If it isn't sufficient to stop people of opposite sex from getting married, then it isn't sufficient to stop people of the same sex from getting married.

quote:

---

Personally I would prefer the law to uphold the moral values that I have, mainly because it means that I get to live and raise my children in a society that I believe is good for them.

---

What about me? Don't I get to live and raise my children in a society that I believe is good for them?Are you seriously saying that it is "good" to destroy families? It is "good" to stop people from loving each other?

quote:

---

I oppose many things in todays society in any case and eventually yes I believe gay marriages will become legal.

---

But you haven't given any reason why they shouldn't other than a personal squick factor.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Ever heard of Sparta ?

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

Shall I try again ?

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

They wanted to have sex with the men.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

defenderofthefaith writes:

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

What if it isn't a wish?

quote:

---

The Lord forbid that homosexual marriage be legalised

---

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

Zealot responds to many people:

quote:

---

The Spartan example was one where an entire town/civilisation could have gay/bisexual tendencies.

---

Incorrect.Sparta was not filled with gays or even bisexuals.By this logic, everybody in prison is gay or bisexual. Surely the prisoners, themselves, would disagree with that assessment.There is a difference between having sex with people who are available and having sex with people who are desirable.

quote:

---

Sodom I suspect would have been bisexual also.

---

But they weren't.

quote:

---

Your assume they just wanted to identify the men in Lots house.

---

It is not an assumption at all. It is a direct reading of the text. Nowhere in the story of Lot does it even hint that the people at Lot's door wanted to do anything except identify the men. In fact, it directly indicates that that was what they wanted for when Lot tried to distract them with sex, they became enraged, berated Lot for such a disgusting thing, and pressed even harder.Again, the phrasing in Genesis 19 is very specific: Bring them out so that we may know them. Not, "so that we may have sex with them" but "so that we may know them." The phrasing in Genesis 19 is copied exactly many times in the Bible and in not one of those other cases is it translated as "have sex." So what is so special about Genesis 19 that it would be completely different?

quote:

---

So Lot thought the only way He could get rid of the men were to give them his virginal daughters ?

---

Yes. By distracting the men, they would no longer be pressing to interrogate the angels.

quote:

---

Interesting man this Lot.

---

Not with regard to the Bible. It's filled with men throwing women around for sex. The story is repeated elsewhere and the men take the bait. The next morning, the woman is dead on the doorstep and the man cuts her into pieces and sends them all over creation.Real nice people in that book, there.

quote:

---

Rather overreacted to some men just wanting to know his guests identities.

---

Oh really? You've got the servants of god in your house who are going to destroy the city if they can't find nice people in the town and you've got a mob outside looking to cause trouble. Wouldn't you cast about for any way to keep the mob pacified?

quote:

---

Why do you think the text specifies 'Whore' for women and 'sodomite' for men ?

---

Because it is a mistranslation guided by the prejudices of the translators.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it that whenever the sin of Sodom is mentioned, sex never seems to come up? Instead, its inhospitality, its refusal to assist others, its great wealth and stingy habits are always the ones that are mentioned?

---

​

Sodomy.

---

Non sequitur.Since the Bible is crystal clear whenever it mentions the sin of Sodom as having nothing to do with sex and everything to do with pride and avarice, how does one conclude that the sin of Sodom is based in same-sex sex?Think about it. If I say to you, "I'm going to punish you because you were drinking while underage," how does that get translated into, "I'm going to punish you because you were driving without a license"?The sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The specific phrasing used in Genesis is used hundreds of other times in the Bible and it is never translated as meaning sex.
What is so special about this one time that makes it different from all the others?

---

​

The very next line of text for one.

---

No, the very next line says nothing. It simply says that the men were behaving wickedly. Since when is rape the only "wicked" thing there is? You're reaching.And you're ignoring the very next line after that. If they were there for sex, why did they refuse the offer? Why did they immediately berate Lot for daring to think that they could be distracted with such a base thing?Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.What do you think "he will needs be a judge" means?

quote:

---

What would be so wicked about getting to 'know' the men ?

---

Because they were going to interrogate them, treat them poorly, accuse them of infiltrating the city for nefarious purposes, and refuse the traditions of hospitality.Since when does "wicked" mean only "sex"?

quote:

---

And here Lot offers his daughters for sex. Unusual behaviour surely

---

Not when you've got the servants of god in your house who are there to destroy your home because they can't find anybody nice.Again, this same story is repeated later in the Bible and it gets even worse...the mob takes the bait, rape the woman to death, and the man thinks nothing of it.

quote:

---

To most Christians this is pretty clear

---

Indeed.Because they've been told what to think about it. This is especially compounded when they are presented with horrendously mistranslated Bibles with passages like the NAS and the NLT.Hint: If your translation indicates that Gen 19:5 has anything to do with sex, then it is a mistranslation.And in the end, you haven't answered my question.The specific phrasing used in Genesis 19:5 is used hundreds of other times in the Bible and not once is it translated to mean sex. What is so special about Gen 19:5 that makes it different from all the others?At no point before Gen 19:5 is there any indication that the men are there for sex.In Gen 19:9, when the men are offered sex, they become even more outraged.Whenever the sin of Sodom is mentioned, sex never rates a mention but rather, inhospitality, haughtiness, failure to tend to the poorer citizenry comes up.So since the text is quite clear that the men are not there for sex and that the sin of Sodom has nothing to do with sex, how can it possibly be claimed that Gen 19:5 is about sex?

quote:

---

I find it firstly important though to confirm the fact that God sees homosexuality as a sin.

---

Really? Where?I've been through the Bible and I can't find a single reference to homosexuality. Temple prostitution, yes, but nothing about homosexuality.This is not surprising since there was no word for "homosexual" at the time and the populace did not understand sexuality in that way.

quote:

---

I choose not to base my argument on 'anal sex' is ichy, so if we can't come to a conclusion that God considers homosexuality a sin , there is little point in me arguing against gay marriage from a Christian point of view.

---

Precisely.Since there is no Biblical prohibition against homosexuality, there should be no Christian antagonism toward same-sex marriage.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

We can well assume that Sodom was full of gay prostitutes.

---

No, we can't. There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that the people of Sodom were gay, prostitutes, or both.

quote:

---

"unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

​

In other words, "These men have not come for sex, they are my guests",

---

That makes no sense. No indication of sex was made by the populace. Lot was the one that first said anything about sex.And you're completely ignoring the response of the crowd: When offered sex, they become even more indignant, berating Lot for daring to think they could be distracted from their duty to protect the town:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

quote:

---

but then that would mean that the men did indeed want to have sex with them, as I've shown.

---

You have done nothing of the kind. Instead, you've made a circular argument. Because you know that Genesis 19 is about sex, then Genesis 19 is about sex.

quote:

---

Nope, its pretty clear they were gay

---

Incorrect. The precise opposite is true. It is pretty clear they weren't.

quote:

---

Quite possibly because Lot wanted to tell them 'these men are not gay and didn't come here for sex'.

---

But that isn't what he said. In fact, he said something very different.For the umpteenth time, what is it about the specific phrasing in Genesis 19:5 that means sex when there are hundreds of times it is used elsewhere in the Bible that doesn't? What's so special about this one time?

quote:

---

Good point, however read the whole text.

---

That was my dictate to you. Did you bother to read Genesis 14 as I suggested?

quote:

---

The angels went to Lot's house to tell him that they were planning on destroying Sodom and that he and his family had to leave.

---

Precisely. So why wouldn't Lot do whatever it took to keep the mob away from the angels, including throwing his daughters to them? He was looking for a distraction for them.But once again, the mob reacts with horror at his suggestion. They aren't there for sex. They're there to make sure their town isn't about to be subjected to another war:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

quote:

---

If Sodom was not renound for respecting people's hospitality, then Lot surely would not have tried to appeal to them on this issue ?

---

That's precisely what he does! He tells them to leave the angels alone, don't interrogate them, they are there under his roof and are not to be treated inhospitably: "only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

quote:

---

So no, it has nothing to do with Sodomites being 'rude' to guests.

---

Incorrect. The precise opposite is true. It has everything to do with Sodomites being rude to guests.It goes even further. Whenever the Bible talks about the sin of Sodom, it never mentions sex but only talks about Sodom being rude to everybody.

quote:

---

The precise reason Lot traded his virginal daughters was because homosexuality was 'unclean' and an abomination.

---

Really? Why? I've been through the entire Bible and I can't find a single verse that says this. Oh, I found some passages about temple prostitution, but nothing about homosexuality.This is not surprising since there was no word for homosexuality in the language nor did the people view sexuality that way.

quote:

---

It is illustrated by the fact that he would rather sacrifise his virginal daughters, than have his guests (whom he's only known 1 day) be sodomised.

---

Where do you get this? Where in Genesis 19 is sex ever mentioned except for when Lot tries to entice the mob?And why do they adamantly refuse if they were there for sex? Why do they become even more enraged that Lot would think they would fall for such a despicable thing?Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

quote:

---

Do you consider being sodomised slighly worst than being interrogated ?

---

Non sequitur. There's nothing in Genesis 19 about same-sex sex.

quote:

---

Because homosexuality is a sin and in those times an abomination.

---

Says who? You? The Bible certainly does say that. There's nothing in the Bible about homosexuality. Temple prostitution, yes, but nothing about homosexuality.This is not surprising since there was no word for homosexuality in the language nor did the people view sexuality that way.

quote:

---

Let me ask you, if you had to choose, would you rather have your son sodomised or your daughter raped ?

---

So you're saying that someone who willingly has anal sex is equivalent to someone unwillingly having sex forced upon him?

quote:

---

Lot did not trade his daughters in for his guest's comfort.

---

Nobody is saying that he did. Instead, he traded his daughters in an attempt to save the people of Sodom from the wrath of the angels. If the mob succeeded in getting their hands on the angels and interrogating them, they would surely be destroyed. So in order to keep them away, he attempted to distract them by offering sex.Which they immediately refuse and become even more outraged that Lot would think they would fall for such a despicable thing:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

quote:

---

It was his guests being raped or his daughters. Once you realise that you might understand his actions as less harsh.

---

Incorrect. It was the destruction of the entire town right there and then or the possible saving of everybody at the expense of his daughters.Once you understand that, you might understand his actions as having nothing to do with sex.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Heterosexuality at one point became a greater vector than homosexuality, though that may have slipped back recently.

---

Um, heterosexuality has always been the greater vector compared to homosexuality when it comes to HIV infection.Worldwide, three-quarters of all cases of HIV infection were through heterosexual sex, according to WHO. Infected needles were the next most likely.It was only in the West that male-male sex was the most likely vector.And in Europe, heterosexual sex just became the #1 vector.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

I must be watching too much Fox News.

---

"We distort. You comply."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, the phrasing in Genesis 19 is very specific: Bring them out so that we may know them. Not, "so that we may have sex with them" but "so that we may know them." The phrasing in Genesis 19 is copied exactly many times in the Bible and in not one of those other cases is it translated as "have sex." So what is so special about Genesis 19 that it would be completely different?

---

​

It is ?

---

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

quote:

---

Lets read 2 lines further

---

(*sigh*)You are.Yes, Zealot, in a couple lines later, Lot also uses "yadda" to talk about how his daughters have not had sex. But, the phrasing used in the Hebrew is not the same as when the crowd demands to see the two men.Therefore, we are back at my original statement. The phrasing in the passage of Genesis 19 of "bring them out so that we may know them" is used hundreds of other times in the Bible and not once is it used to indicate sex. What is so special about this one time that it would be completely different?You will note that even in the English, the phrasings are not the same."Bring them out so that we may know them" does not remotely have the connotations of "have not known man." The second phrase is clearly a euphemistic phrase to indicate that his daughters are virgins. The first one, however, doesn't give any indication that sex is anywhere on the crowd's mind.

quote:

---

And what phrase did they use to describe how they wanted to have sex with the men ?

---

A different phrase than that used in Genesis 19. Go look it up. Here's a transliteration from the Hebrew of the two verses in question:Genesis 19:5: va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam:Judges 19:22: he.ma mei.ti.vim et-li.bam ve.hi.ne an.shei ha.ir an.shei ve.nei-ve.li.ya.al na.sa.bu et-ha.ba.yit mit.dap.kim al-ha.da.let va.yom.ru el-ha.ish ba.al ha.ba.yit ha.za.ken le.mor ho.tse et-ha.ish a.sher-ba el-bet.kha ve.ne.da.e.nu:You will note that the two do not match up.Oh, and just for good measure, here's the verse where Lot talks of his daughters not "knowing" men:Genesis 19:8: hi.ne-na li she.tei va.not a.sher lo-yad.u ish o.tsi.a-na et.hen a.lei.khem va.a.su la.hen ka.tov be.ei.nei.khem rak la.a.na.shim ha.el al-ta.a.su da.var ki-al-ken ba.u be.tsel ko.ra.ti:Again, it doesn't match up.So once again, we are left with my original statement. The exact phrasing used in Genesis 19:5 is used elsewhere and is never translated to mean sex. What is so special about this one time?

quote:

---

They were angry as Lot called them wicked.

---

Since when did "wicked" become a synonym for "gay"?

quote:

---

They were such significant sinners that God decided to utterly destroy their city, yet you are suggesting they were disgusted by the idea of raping the women ?

---

You mean the only way a person can be rotten to the core is if among the multitudes of sins carried out is rape?Yes. You're forgetting Genesis 14. They were in a war in which they were handed their asses on silver platters. The guy who saved them humiliated their king. That guy's relative is living in town and is harboring strangers. What on earth makes you think the town has sex on their mind?

quote:

---

Fact is that the men of Sodom were so sinfull that God Himself saw to its destruction.

---

I don't deny that Sodom was sinful.What I deny is that the sins of Sodom had anything to do with homosexuality. Nowhere in the Bible when the sins of Sodom are mentioned do they ever seem to think to highlight that. Instead, the only things that seem to make the grade are its pride, its haughtiness, it's refusal to help the poor and needy. Sodom was rich and did nothing with it.

quote:

---

Lot called their demands to have sex with the men wicked.

---

When did "wicked" become a synonym for sex? I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in Lot's condemnation of the mob that refers to sex. He does not say, "Do not have sex with them." He says, "Do not be wicked to them."So please tell me, how is it that "wicked" came to mean "sex"? Oh, I know it could be, but what is it about this specific instance, what context exists in this particular passage, that tells you that when Lot came out and described them as "wicked," he was talking about sex? It certainly wasn't because they demanded to "know" the men because as we've just seen, the mob didn't demand sex.So if the mob didn't demand sex, why would Lot call them "wicked"?Perhaps they were doing something else?

quote:

---

You choose to believe the accuracy of the Old Testament carried across by verbally from Rabbi to Rabbi since the time of Moses , past the birth and death of Christ, yet when it comes to a mass translation to Latin, God fearing men, unanimously decide to purposefully, NOT erroneously , alter their translations to condemn homosexuals as sinners.

---

Yes. Does the word "politics" mean nothing to you?Take, as an example, the KJV. It was written specifically to improve the English tradition of the Divine Right of Kings. The translation reeks of it.

quote:

---

no complaints from the Jews ?

---

Why would Jews care about what Christians did? Tell me...when was the last time you listened to a rabbi concerning the deeper meaning of the mitzvot? Do you even know what that is?Besides, Judaism doesn't think the destruction of Sodom had anything to do with sex, either. It's only the Christians who seem to have picked it up from who knows where.

quote:

---

Not just that, but we are talking about a large amount of believers in God willingly altering God’s words

---

No, we're not.The vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible. Instead, they go off of what other people tell them the Bible says. And where did those people learn what the Bible says? Again, not from actually reading the Bible but from what they were told by someone else the Bible says.And of the people who have read the Bible, they don't read it in the closest-we-can-get-to-original language. Instead, they read a translation. So now we've got an interpretation on top of an interpretation handed down via the telephone game.Do you really think that is the most reliable source?

quote:

---

when they knew the consequences of doing so.

---

The king would make quick work of your figgins? Oh, yeah...translate it the way the King wants it to be translated.

quote:

---

The later references to inhospitality in relation to Sodom are not due to a misunderstanding of the sin of Sodom on the part of the Jews, but to their habit of speaking indirectly of sexual matters out of modesty.

---

Oh, please!Haven't you read the Bible? It's filled with sex! How very strange that you think that despite the fact that the Bible talks about how Lot's daughters had sex with their own father in Genesis, how Judges talks about the rape of that poor woman, and the entire Song of Solomon which is an erotic poem, you then try to say that the reason nobody ever seems to mention the fact that Sodom was filled with gay people is because they were being "modest."

quote:

---

From Levitical Law, this time quoted from the Septuagint (English translation)

---

Again, why are you using an English translation? Why aren't you looking at the Hebrew?

quote:

---

Lev 18vs22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination.

---

Mistranslation. "Abomination" isn't quite right. "Pagan" is better but still not the best. The only word that is coming to mind is the actual Hebrew word: to'evah. That means something of ritual significance that is not "kosher," if you will.And you're also forgetting the context in which this is being made. For the umpteenth time, homosexuality as we understand it did not exist at the time. The reference is to fertility rituals that yes, included same-sex sexual activity.

quote:

---

Anything assuming that Lot would be hated because of Abraham is massive speculation.

---

And yet you seem absolutely willing to speculate that what the mob was after, and let's not forget that it is the entire male population of the city, was sex.At least I have shown some sort of context that would indicate why the entire male population of the city might be gathering outside Lot's door. All you have done is said, "Well, 'know' means sex and 'wicked' means sex," without giving any particular reason why they do other than you want them to.

quote:

---

PS, where are you getting your translations from ?

---

Many places.

quote:

---

I've made use of both the Masoretic Text (which I'm sure you'll have problems with )

---

(*chuckle*)Yeah...right. Of course, it never occurred to you that I'm using the Masoretic Text.Quick question: Have I ever been to rabbinical school?Think carefully, now.

quote:

---

Just that some of your quotes seemed to mimic the Masoretic Text.

---

Hmmm...interesting.You're sure I'd have trouble with the Masoretic text and yet, you think I'm using it.That doesn't make any sense.

quote:

---

creating a blessing of something 'sinfull' by a priest would indeed be a grave sin.

---

So why was the Catholic Church performing same-sex marriage?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Again.. can you find statistics for the majority of causes of HIV ?

---

We already have.Multiple times.The most common cause of HIV infection, worldwide, is heterosexual sex, accounting for about three-quarters of all cases.The next most common is IV drug use.That's according to the World Health Organization.It is only in the West that HIV was primarily transmitted via male-male sex. And in Europe, heterosexual sex just became the most common method of transmission.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!