quote:

---

The matter of homosexual marriage has brought forth a lot of conflict and division among the people of this nation, primarily because many people hold their beliefs in the Bible, which they know to hold homosexuality as a sin. From the Genesis through Romans, through the teachings of our clergymen, it appears as the whole of the Bible is in accord on this matter.

There are eight primary scriptures used to lambast homosexuality. These are known as the Big Eight, and they are Genesis 19:4-11, Judges 19:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:26-27.

In the next few weeks, we will cover all these verses in ones, twos, or threes. Try to disregard the teachings you've grown up with and keep an open mind when you read this. What you decide in the end is up to you entirely.

Genesis 19 is the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The focus of the case against homosexuality is presented in these seven verses:

quote:

---

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

---

Archeological evidence shows that Sodom was most likely destroyed around the 20th century BC, and that it was located in an area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. (Harper's Bible Dictionary, Bible-History.com) At this time, Greek was beginning to rise from humble origins and was gaining power throughout the Mediterranean.

The Greeks had a very strong custom called xenia. This was a custom of hospitality that was strictly enforced throughout the Greek nation. Namely, it dictated a guest-host relationship in which the host was required to take in any guest that arrived at his home at any time, exchange gifts, and, of utmost importance, protect the guest under any and all circumstances. This custom was often enforced by death to the violator, and probably came about due to the scarcity of communication between the Greek Isles; whatever information there was was brought by travelers, and they needed to be able to count on a place to stay whereever they went. (You can check my definition of xenia here, but the rest of the information about xenia came from my learnings of the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If you can identify any problems with it, please let me know.)

This concept of xenia worked so well for the Greeks that versions of it can be found among many other cultures and nations of the time. This is where we come back to scripture. For those who have trouble slogging through scripture, a summary of Sodom's destruction follows.

Lot was sitting outside the gates of Sodom when two angels of God arrived. Lot introduced himself and offered the angels a berth for the night. They refuse, and he offers again. They accept Lot's offer and follow him to his home. Once there, he feeds them, washes them, and offers them a bed for the night. An excellent follower of the xenic principle. At this point the evening turns sour. The townspeople gather around Lot's house and demand that he hand over his guests so that they could rape them. Lot refuses and does something that modern society would consider appalling: he offers his two virgin daughters in the angels' stead. Remember, though, the xenic custom placed the safety of the guest over everything else. The townspeople refuse and begin battering down the door. At this point, the angels step in, blind the attackers, and send Lot and his family out to another town, at which point they destroy Sodom.

This leaves a bit of ambiguity as to the actual reason behind Sodom's destruction, in my opinion. For more insight, we have to look at the three verses that explicitly state Sodom's sin. These are:

Jeremiah 23:14

quote:

---

14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem
I have seen something horrible:
They commit adultery and live a lie.
They strengthen the hands of evildoers,
so that no one turns from his wickedness.
They are all like Sodom to me;
the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah."

---

Jude 1:7

quote:

---

7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

---

Ezekiel 16:49-50

quote:

---

49'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

These all contain a similar vein: sexual immorality or perversion. Ezekiel goes a bit further, however, and details the Sodomite's inhospitality to visitors and to their own people. Could it not be that the crime of Sodom was not so much men having sex with men, but townspeople regularily raping visitors to the town and disobeying the sacred law of xenia?

The Talmud, a record of the discussions of many rabbis on Jewish laws and ethics (Fact-Index), concurs with Ezekiel's descriptions of Sodom's crimes:

quote:

---

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.

There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour's wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour's ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.

Source

---

In modern terms, the Talmud suggests that the Sodomites were condemned for restricting immigration...for institutionalizing the law of "might makes right"...and perversion of justice.
Source

In fact, throughout the Talmud, the term middat Sdom is used, which translates to "the way Sodom thought". It is used to indicate inhospitality, arrogance, or lack of charity.

Religioustolerance.org

In Isaiah 1:1-31, Isaiah lists out the sins of Judah and Jerusalem, and likens them to the people of Sodom:

Isaiah 1:10

quote:

---

Listen to the LORD, you leaders of Israel! Listen to the law of our God, people of Israel. You act just like the rulers and people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

He goes on to tell their crimes: rebellion against God (Isaiah 1:4), idolatry and meaningless worship (Isaiah 1:13), injustice, lack of charity (Isaiah 1:17), murder and corruption (Isaiah 1:21-23).

Nowhere does Isaiah list homosexuality as a sin of Sodom, Judah, or Jerusalem.

Sodom and Gomorrah were perpetrators of many, many sins, rape and inhospitality foremost among them. That this is an argument against homosexuality takes the story a perhaps a step further than it was intended. We will see a similar story in Judges, in which God orders the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin.

---

quote:

---

The matter of homosexual marriage has brought forth a lot of hate in this country....

---

quote:

---

It does seem that there was more to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah than homosexuality. Certainly trying to rape newcomers is a pretty ugly thing to do. But I don't quite see how that means that homosexuality wasn't part of the offense. Taken by itself, there isn't as much evidence along those lines, true, but there are the other scriptures. Unless you want to count the Old Testament to only be concerned with disease and Paul to not *really* be authoritative. (Not sure where that second one comes from though.)

---

That's an excellent point, Beverly. Continuing that thread of logic, if I kill someone as I stand on one leg, why wouldn't standing on one leg also count against me when considering my punishment?
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
That's not great logic, Lalo... Most people don't believe that standing on one foot is intrinsically wrong, whereas a lot of people believe being gay is. To them, it could be like killing someone and also raping them. Or something.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
No, it's not great logic.

And while I have profound pity for whoever believes homosexuality is intrinsically wrong (unless there are particularly convincing arguments I haven't heard), does that mean if I believed standing on one leg was intrinsically wrong, I'm as logical preaching against the evils of one-leggedness by anecdoting a story about killing people on one leg as a priest preaching against the evils of homosexuality by anecdoting the rapes of Sodom?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my point. Beverly's factoring in homophobia as a rationale for God's smiting Sodom, the incredible difficulty of believing that story aside. If I factor in standing-on-one-leg as a rationale for God's smoting of me for my crime of killing another, how am I less logical than her? Is it possible He was smiting rapists, not homosexuals? If God's failed to smite all that many one-legged men since my murder, is it possible He smote me for my murder, not for the fact I was standing on one leg? God's track record of smiting rapists and murderers aside.

Though all this is pointless, anyway, given I can just cite all sorts of wacky laws nobody pays attention to from the Old Testament and people will insist, oh no, we just don't listen to the Old Testament anymore! A new covenant! The Old Testament's no longer applicable! Which renders this argument moot as all hell.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*curious*

who (human) does stand on one leg such that it would be worthy of incorporating it as an argumentative fixture?

fallow

*edit: lowers tail feathers over knees*

[ August 03, 2004, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Though, personally, I would dearly love to hear an explanation as to how homosexuality is less moral than standing on one leg. Can anyone provide one?
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
eh-hehey!!!

[ August 03, 2004, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"God wouldn't fry a city JUST because there was a lot of homosexual interaction going on, or JUST because somebody raped someone else"

Out of interest, what WOULD God fry a city for?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
To provide an object lesson that lasts thousands of years, silly.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Or could it possibly be that this story in the Old Testament was written by the ancient equivalent of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ? Could it be that a city met with terrible natural destruction and a "good shepherd" of that era took the opportunity to lay the cause on the behaviors he considered sinful and ascribe those to the inhabitants of that city?

I don't think that's very much of a stretch? Certainly less of a stretch than the story itself or than trying to write apologist arguements for embarassing scriptures. (Though I appreciate the sentiments behind the apologist arguement. )

[ August 03, 2004, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would argue that by the time you reach "God's scripture is full of lies because it's important for believers to learn to recognize them," you're pretty close to disbelief.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I didn't think there was any archeological evidence that Sodom existed. Can you quote your source?

EDIT: Oops, never mind, I see that you did.

Hmm.

[ August 03, 2004, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You did a good job of researching and writing this out HRE. I think you'd find even more support for your position if you check out the Jewish commentaries on the story of Sodom found in the Talmud and elsewhere. They don't seem to think it was about homosexuality either.
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
I'm not familiar with the Talmud, and I would have no idea where to begin looking. Can you point me in the right direction?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Lalo, Ezekiel speaks of the reasons why Sodom was destroyed. Reasons is plural, more than one. It may have been that only one reason would not have been enough. The above example does not attempt to make a case for homosexuality *not* being considered a sin by God. It seems to me that there is enough evidence in scripture that it is a sin.

So in your example add to killing someone raping them also, because I think you and I can both agree on raping as being a sin.

I think it is interesting to note that the story in Judges is so similar to the story of Lot in Sodom. Kind of the way the stories of Sarah and Rebekkah being desired by powerful men are similar. It has been speculated that only one of those stories actually happened, and there is no way to know which is the actual event and which was a ledgend that developed. Or they both may have happened.

In the story in Judges, we have almost the same events. A male visitor comes and men want to have sex with him. Again a maiden daughter is offered to hold them off. It is called "wicked" and "folly" even as he offers to let them rape his daughter! How would raping a daughter be better than doing something inhospitable? If homosexuality weren't a sin and it were rape for rape and his daughter.... I don't buy it. Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act. Lot (and I assume this man, if this isn't a ledgend retelling) was taught according to Jewish law, I don't see why he would particularly care about Greek custom.

This makes a strong case for the idea that the homosexuality was abominable in the sight of God and that it therefore makes sense that it would be included under any explaination of "sexual abomination" and therefore part of the reason for the destruction because it is part of the description of abomination.

Then, of course, you have the other scriptures in the new testament.

But this all precludes that you actually believe these things to be the word of God, which you don't. But I do. I also have the words of modern-day prophets on the subject. And this happens to be what I believe.

[ August 03, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
HRE,
Here's a brief look at some of the stuff from the Talmud, Mishna and Midrash. I don't know how great a resource it is, but it looks like you can find the Talmud and Midrash here. Hope this helps.

[ August 03, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Further scriptural evidence that the among the many sins of Sodom, sexual sin stands out:

Deut. 23: 17

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

This sentance talks about whores and sodomites as though they are similar. Whores being female, sodomites male. Could it be rape and not homosexuality? Yes, but you have the circumstance of offering a daughter rather than a male. Implication: homosexuality.

The term sodomite is then used again, and again, and again in the Old Testament.

Here is another relating it to sexual immorality:

Jer. 23: 14

14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

We've already heard this one:

Jude 1: 7

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

So, it seems to me illogical to make a case for sexual sin *not* being a part of it. Unless, again, you do not believe the Bible is scripture. And I think I have made a case for the homosexuality in specific.

[ August 03, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I doubt very seriously that Lot was taught according to "Jewish Law" or at least according to any code of law we have evidence of outside Genesis itself since Lot and co. predate anything most scholars would probably consider the origins of "Jewish Law" (i.e. the myriad proscriptions handed down through Moses).
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The Wikipedia article looks to be a good compilation, Squicky. The stuff at sacred-texts is mostly second-rate (or worse) translations. (The good ones haven't entered public domain.)

quote:

---

Deut. 23: 17

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

---

Well, in my text it's verse 18 , but in any case, the Hebrew is (in both the case of the male and female) absolutely devoid of the root "sodom." It has a root that is usually translated as either prostitution or promiscuity, depending on context.

I can't actually look up Yirmiyahu, and it's been years since I last studied it. Hoverer, I seem to recall that the Sodom and Gomorrah aspects of the comparison were more related to the deliberate and compounded wickedness.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Karl Ed, yeah that was what I was wondering too. As far as I was aware the Greeks were way, way after the time of Lot. While there is still an extremely strong hospitality tradition in the middle east, to my knowledge it vastly preceded the Greeks, so I don't quite know how relevant bringing them into the discussion is. Lot was way before the Persians, before the true founding of Israel, so you probably should look at earlier middle eastern cultures to get your hospitality references.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 

quote:

---

Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act.

---

Actually I think it makes a strong case, as does much of the rest of the Old Testament, that men acting feminine were evil but no one much cared what happened to women.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I do think turning one's back on the hungry and naked is a worse sin than being gay. And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women. It is a form of ingratitude for God's creation (equally for women who reject men).

Now in the context of this passage, I don't think it would have been okay if they had raped the virgins. I don't think that was very sound thinking on Lot's part. Of course, considering how they did wind up starting their families... And those were the people God saved out of Sodom. If it is true that they were the best of that city, it had to be a city pretty riddled with anxiety and self-sufficient thinking.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women."

So bisexuals, who accept ALL of God's creation, are the ideal?
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 

quote:

---

While there is still an extremely strong hospitality tradition in the middle east, to my knowledge it vastly preceded the Greeks, so I don't quite know how relevant bringing them into the discussion is. Lot was way before the Persians, before the true founding of Israel, so you probably should look at earlier middle eastern cultures to get your hospitality references.

---

Sodom was destroyed circa 1900 BC, when the Greek nation was just beginning and the Minoan Empire was in full strength. That is where I drew the traditions from. There is evidence that it superceded even the Minoans.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Sure Though I think Monogamy with someone with whom it is possible to procreate is best.

P.S. Do you mean superceded or preceded?

[ August 03, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Ok thanks for the clarification. Most of the time though when people say "Greeks" they are referring to the nation in its heyday which was considerably later.

AJ
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
Ok, I found the stuff from the Talmud and the Midrash. Let me see how I can work it in there.
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
I changed it, primarily in the last third. Does it still flow well and tie together?
 

---

Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 

quote:

---

And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women. It is a form of ingratitude for God's creation

---

quote:

---

And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women. It is a form of ingratitude for God's creation

---

quote:

---

But I honestly believe that he does not under any circumstances condone sexual relations between same-gender. But I also believe that he does not at any time condone sexual relations outside of marriage either.

For men who just can't feel attracted to women, this is a plight. But for those for whom it is a choice between one or the other, well, they have a choice.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I think it makes a strong case, as does much of the rest of the Old Testament, that men acting feminine were evil but no one much cared what happened to women.

---

quote:

---

I'll address your earlier argument in a second, but I'm fairly sure you're going to back out of it fairly soon given loyalty to the Old Testament means loyalty to all the Old Testament -- and oh, the laws, the laws they are a'wacky.

---

Not necessarily. That is what continuing revelation is for. Certain laws apply to specific times according to the needs of that time. Other laws are based on eternal, unchanging principles. The homosexuality thing happens to be one of them.

quote:

---

I've never quite understood how homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Why you declare it immoral for a woman to fall in love with a woman even if she's bisexual and can couple with a man -- if I fall in love with a brunette incapable of having children, though I'm capable of reproducing with a blonde, am I immoral? Does your declaration mean the contention of your religion is that love exists for the purpose of reproduction?

---

quote:

---

Lalo, Ezekiel speaks of the reasons why Sodom was destroyed. Reasons is plural, more than one. It may have been that only one reason would not have been enough. The above example does not attempt to make a case for homosexuality *not* being considered a sin by God. It seems to me that there is enough evidence in scripture that it is a sin.

---

quote:

---

So in your example add to killing someone raping them also, because I think you and I can both agree on raping as being a sin.

---

quote:

---

I think it is interesting to note that the story in Judges is so similar to the story of Lot in Sodom. Kind of the way the stories of Sarah and Rebekkah being desired by powerful men are similar. It has been speculated that only one of those stories actually happened, and there is no way to know which is the actual event and which was a ledgend that developed. Or they both may have happened.

---

quote:

---

In the story in Judges, we have almost the same events. A male visitor comes and men want to have sex with him. Again a maiden daughter is offered to hold them off. It is called "wicked" and "folly" even as he offers to let them rape his daughter! How would raping a daughter be better than doing something inhospitable? If homosexuality weren't a sin and it were rape for rape and his daughter.... I don't buy it. Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act. Lot (and I assume this man, if this isn't a ledgend retelling) was taught according to Jewish law, I don't see why he would particularly care about Greek custom.

---

quote:

---

This makes a strong case for the idea that the homosexuality was abominable in the sight of God and that it therefore makes sense that it would be included under any explaination of "sexual abomination" and therefore part of the reason for the destruction because it is part of the description of abomination.

---

quote:

---

Then, of course, you have the other scriptures in the new testament.

---

quote:

---

But this all precludes that you actually believe these things to be the word of God, which you don't. But I do. I also have the words of modern-day prophets on the subject. And this happens to be what I believe.

---

quote:

---

Not necessarily. That is what continuing revelation is for. Certain laws apply to specific times according to the needs of that time. Other laws are based on eternal, unchanging principles. The homosexuality thing happens to be one of them.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never quite understood how homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Why you declare it immoral for a woman to fall in love with a woman even if she's bisexual and can couple with a man -- if I fall in love with a brunette incapable of having children, though I'm capable of reproducing with a blonde, am I immoral? Does your declaration mean the contention of your religion is that love exists for the purpose of reproduction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This shows a lack of understanding of my faith and beliefs.

---

quote:

---

As for the whole propegation thing, you have to understand LDS theology on the eternal nature of the family. The idea is that the organization of the family unit is far more than just an earthly convenience. We believe in a married God. We believe that mankind *can* be exalted to be as God. Part of this involves marriage. We believe in the continuation of the marital relationship and all that that implies and the continuation of procreation also. We believe that that is where *we* came from.

---

quote:

---

So just because a man and woman can't have children in this life means nothing. They can be parents of children in the eternities. The idea here is building family units that may last eternally. Homosexual unions don't fit into that plan. They may even run contrary to it.

---

Oh, my mistake. You don't care that heterosexuals can't have children, since that'll work out anyway. But homosexuals that can't have children (which is only half the homosexual population, btw), they're incapable of being "family units that may last eternally" -- why, exactly?

I am trying desperately to understand your beliefs for something more than they appear. Thus far I'm disappointed -- I ask again, please, provide some reasoning that substantiates your claim that homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Please.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But homosexuals that can't have children (which is only half the homosexual population, btw), they're incapable of being 'family units that may last eternally' -- why, exactly?"

Eddie, technically, they're not. Homosexual men can marry women and become part of a family unit that lasts eternally. Seriously.

The Mormons believe that gender is in fact an attribute that perhaps transcends God Himself; it's an inherent part of someone. So you need someone of the female gender and someone of the male gender to form one of those eternal units, because -- they believe -- that's just the way the universe works.

You might not agree, but you can't argue with their logic (if only because their logic immediately appeals to a higher power).
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
The problem is that is if you believe in an objective morality, meaning truth that exists whether anyone believes it or not, there isn't going to be any proof. I'm not saying this so that you'll agree with me, that's the last thing I'd expect. But when something is objectively true, there doesn't HAVE to be proof, although it's your prerogative if you choose not to believe it.

What I mean is, if you believe in a world where the only things that can exist are things that can be proven by scientific methods, then you don't believe in objective truth, because that exists outside of science, etc.

I am NOT talking about what I believe is objectively true. I'm talking about THE objective truth, whatever that is, that is true no matter what. That didn't spring out of a scientific, amoral beginning.

[ August 03, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
You have to be able to look at it from multiple perspectives, but the religious one isn't always big enough, especially when you take into consider personal experience and what it feels like to be magnetically drawn to a person of the same sex no matter how many times you tell yourself how "wrong" it is...
Those verses are probably often taken out of context.

And what is the story of a woman who had been raped and killed and the person who did it had to pay money to her husband because of damage of property?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Jutsa, it is possible to understand another's POV even if you disagree with it. I have seen plenty of non-religious understand a religious POV. But I have never seen Lalo even try to understand. Only refute.

Lalo, Judges 19 has the story. "Wicked" and "folly" referred to sexual things the men were going to do to the guest man.

How exactly do you want me to make my case? By using scriptures you don't believe in? I'm sure you have heard each scripture in the Bible that addresses the issue. But if you don't believe in the Bible of *course* that is not going to hold any weight with you.

I am only making a case that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. My case involves that while Sodom and Gommorrah may have been destroyed for far more reason than homosexuality, which is found every where in every time, that doesn't mean that the Bible does not say that it is a sin. That is all.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Karl, I am aware of the JST for that portion. But there is also the story in Judges to consider. It is pretty much identical.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Also, even if Paul was a misogyist blinded by the culture of his day, how does that mean that everything else he said is wrong? Not that I necessarily believe myself that he was a misogynist blinded by his culture. I think it is entirely possible that he was responding to the needs of the culture at that time. Could you even conceive the possibility that one was because of the culture of the day and the other was based on something much more eternal?

I think I did a decent job of explaining *why* it is an eternal principle. I am not asking you to believe me, just understand how I see it.

And why this word "homophobia"? If I think pre-marital sex is a sin does that make me "pre-maritalsex-o-phobic"? If I believe that God does not want us to use substances that are detrimentally addictive does that make me "alcoholic-o-phobic"? I honestly don't see the purpose in using the word except to be offensive. Some people truly are "homophobic". I am not one of them.

[ August 03, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Bev, I have a book by Kevin Aucoin that calls men "homophobic" if they don't like to wear eyeliner. It gets waaaay overused.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah. I can't see any reason for it except an attempt to make people angry.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Just for the record, I understand the religious view, even though I reject it. And I don't think you are homophobic, bev. I agree the term gets over-used.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Heh, christ. Bev, did you not read my posts on the previous page?

I do you the honor of citing your every question/assertion, then addressing it. Could you please do the same for me? I'm sure you'd be far less repetitive if you addressed my questions with points that weren't what I had questioned to begin with.

quote:

---

Bev, I have a book by Kevin Aucoin that calls men "homophobic" if they don't like to wear eyeliner. It gets waaaay overused.

---

quote:

---

Also, even if Paul was a misogyist blinded by the culture of his day, how does that mean that everything else he said is wrong? Not that I necessarily believe myself that he was a misogynist blinded by his culture. I think it is entirely possible that he was responding to the needs of the culture at that time. Could you even conceive the possibility that one was because of the culture of the day and the other was based on something much more eternal?

---

This quote has exceeded my recommended daily intake of irony.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"and moving to keep homosexuals from having equals rights with heterosexuals..."

Eddie, I HATE to play Devil's Advocate in this situation, but you're setting up a straw man here -- if only because the people here who oppose same-sex marriage do not consider it an "equal right." You don't do your argument any favors if you argue from premises that the people on the other side don't already concede.

Which is why I now focus on demonstrating why religion is silly, instead of trying to persuade the religious that their specific religious beliefs are unjust and/or dangerous.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
So, Lalo, you don't see any difference between stating an opinion about homosexuality, and taking drastic action on it?
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
beverly:

quote:

---

I am only making a case that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin.

---

quote:

---

I am only making a case that according to the Bible, {homosexuality is a sin}.

---

quote:

---

I do you the honor of citing your every question/assertion, then addressing it. Could you please do the same for me? I'm sure you'd be far less repetitive if you addressed my questions with points that weren't what I had questioned to begin with.

---

I apologize. I am really pressed for time today, so I haven't been able to devote as much time to this discussion as I would like. I am going to read some more now to see if I missed anything--including the rest of your next post.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Interesting choice of words, Lal. Reflex action, I know.

As to homophobic - it can take on a number of meanings, but the most basic is "a fear of homosexuals."

And I think most men suffer from this on occasion and to varying degrees - although what can be construed as homophobic might, in some instances, be more accurately attributed to a fear of appearing weak or somehow less than masculine. It's a straight guy thing.

My bestest bud in the whole world is gay, although he defies most, if not all the usual stereotypes. In fact, it amuses me endlessly to be out with him and watch women ignore me (the straight one) completely while falling all over him.

And PSI - yes, it does get used overmuch. But that's true of almost any phrase or expression and certainly not limited to "homophobic." And that in no way mitigates the impact of the word - just like racism. It's become almost commonplace to hear someone yell "you're treating me like dirt because I'm black" or insert relative color here.

That's entirely possible - of course, you could just be an ass who happens to be black.

Eh, I'm rambling.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thank you, PSI. You hit the nail on the head.

Thank you also, KarlEd.

[ August 03, 2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Trevor-

Because I said it, let me state the actual sentence so I don't misquote the guy. He's not around to defend himself anymore.

"Insecure men, who are unsure about their own masculinity (or homophobic) may find the idea of eyeliner just too threatening."

-Kevyn Aucoin (misspelled his name before...ergh)

I remember my husband thought this was very confusing. He said, "How can I be insecure in my masculinity if I want to look masculine?"

[ August 03, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mike and Olivetta. I tried to limit the discussion to the Bible. But I have sources beyond the Bible. You see, LDS doctrine contains additional scripture just as the New Testament is additional scripture beyond what the Jews believe in. We also have modern day prophets.

Now these prophets don't go around saying "homosexuality is bad!" "homosexuality is wrong!" It usually isn't mentioned at all. The word "immoral" is usually used in LDS discussion to refer to the use of sexuality outside of the bounds God intended. We believe God intended sex to bring husband and wife together and bind eternal families, that sex and pro-creation continue into the eternities. It is just understood that homosexuality is not within the bounds God intended sex to be used for. That there will not be any homosexual relations in the eternities.

So just as homosexual relations are outside of those bounds so are any other extra-marital sexual relations. The problem with homosexual union is that there is not a place within God's plan where it is appropriate. (All of this in accordance with LDS doctrine, I am not trying to put it forth as fact.)

Synesthesia (and Lalo): I am a firm believer that it is possible to *not* fall in love with somebody by choice. If I followed my heart rather than my head, I probably would be married to a certain Filipino man rather than Porter (see our joint landmark for the whole story).

I certainly looked for more than "love" in a choice of a mate. I looked for someone who had similar values and beliefs as I do. I do think that it is probably not possible to stop being *attracted* though. You simply don't act on that attraction. A homosexual individual could choose to apply these same principles if they are capable of being attracted to the opposite sex. Not so simple if they aren't capable of it though.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
PSI-

It's true in both respects. I'm reasonably secure in my masculinity - not that I understand the urge of some men to wear eye liner, but it doesn't bother me.

On the flip side, people who are insecure or worried can react badly to things that may challenge their concerns.

It's kinda like the joke about men who have massive gun collections or drive flashy cars are compensating.

Yeah, they might be - they might also like guns and/or really like cars.

Does this make any kind of sense, or am I rambling again?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
On the subject of the JST translation of the Lot episode, I have considered that somewhere along the line the story was changed to be more like the Judges story (which, admittedly, is pretty ugly), thus making a stronger case against homosexuality for that particular situation. (The image of offering your daughter to avoid a homosexual rape is pretty poignant.)

If I take the JST translation to be literal on this case, then Lot did *not* offer his daughters but instead showed concern for them as well.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Heh! Really? So what makes homophobia an eternal, unchanging principle of God and the declaration that we kill those that work on the Sabbath a "certain law" that applies "to specific times according to the needs of that time"?

You're pulling at straws, Bev. Is this how you excuse inconsistency in belief in the Bible? I'll believe this because it's an eternal unchanging principle of God, but that, oh, He can't believe that, and hmm, I'm sympathetic with this so I'll believe that, and oh that looks perfectly ridiculous! God wouldn't want us to do that!

---

quote:

---

Well, no. I'm trying to provide some reasoning for the homophobia you declared is an "eternal, unchanging principle" of your faith and beliefs. You declare people can't (or shouldn't) fall in love with their same gender, but have yet to provide any reasoning why aside from a truly monstrous (and bizarrely interpreted) story from the Old Testament about a man giving his daughters to a mob.

So I'll ask again. What reasoning do you have for your anti-homosexuality? What, exactly, makes homosexuality immoral? You can shoot up all the Bible passages you want, but I can shoot up others I doubt you'll declare are also "eternal, unchanging principles of God." (Your argument that your beliefs are what God actually wants and He didn't mean all the rest of that in the Bible is interesting, but hardly a new twist, and I remain somehow unswayed.) Can you provide any sort of reasoning which makes homosexuality immoral? Or will you rest with the I-believe-homosexuality-is-immoral-so-it-is argument?

---

quote:

---

Oh, my mistake. You don't care that heterosexuals can't have children, since that'll work out anyway. But homosexuals that can't have children (which is only half the homosexual population, btw), they're incapable of being "family units that may last eternally" -- why, exactly?

---

quote:

---

And while I have profound pity for whoever believes homosexuality is intrinsically wrong (unless there are particularly convincing arguments I haven't heard),

---

quote:

---

Eddie will never hear a convincing argument because what he wants is something stated in terms of his own philosophy which he finds compelling.

---

I am not trying to convince anyone. I am merely trying to explain my beliefs and hoping against hope to be understood.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I think he's safely in the "secure in my sexuality" camp, PSI.

He's not wearing eyeliner because he wants to, any more than he's using cleansers and lotions because he likes them but because you asked him to.

I started using a face cleanser as a means of keeping my oily patches under control and so far it works - and I use oatmeal-based shaving cream because my ex recommended it.

Which is a far cry from wearing lipstick and eye liner anywhere but on stage.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
I just cannot comprehend the notion that there is "heterosexual rape" and "homosexual rape." Rape has nothing to do with actual sexual attraction. It's about power and violence, and should have no part in a discussion about sexuality (except inasmuch as it affects the victim's sexual self-identity).
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually Jac - they can co-exist. It's when people on either side of the fence start thinking they can't, trouble starts.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"These two different viewpoints cannot coexist."

This is why I have ... *dramatic pause* ... made arrangements. You'll see.

You'll ALL see.


 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Does Christy know?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Difference nuances, Van.

The common theory suggests rape is about power, not sex.

I would submit that at least some sexual desire factors into some rape scenarios, although I couldn't provide definitive proof one way or the other.

Man-on-man rape in prison is relatively common, but it's about power, not sex. Similar to a dog establishing dominance over other dogs.

However, if the aggressor is homosexual in a man-on-man scenario, I find it difficult to believe that a sexual component could not exist, just as a man-on-woman assault could also consist of sexual intent.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually Jac - they can co-exist. It's when people on either side of the fence start thinking they can't, trouble starts.

---

quote:

---

I am curious, honesly curious, about one thing. Is it the act that is immoral or the fact that it's two people of the same sex doing it? What if a married couple has anal sex or engage in prostate massage or some such? Would that also be immoral for LDS? And whose business would THAT be, exactly?

---

quote:

---

If you adopt an extremist view point, this is true.

"Suffer not a witch to live."

And so on.

However, while you may disapprove of someone and certainly never choose to adopt a similar lifestyle, you certainly aren't required to hunt them down and terminate the offender.

Unless, of course, you decide to go the extremist route.

---

I already said that the two different communities can coexist as in the members of one needn't be violent with the members of the other. However, I don't see how one can hold to, for example, the secular humanist view that everything is permissible except that which hurts others AND believe that the formation of a strong family is the number one priority of society. A person simply cannot givehis highest allegiance to two incompatible philosophies.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Oh, and I forgot to say: Nobody's business.

I do, however, draw a distinction between being an advocate for heterosexual marriage and being of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, and physically going into a house and stringing up men who are having sex, unless children or people who cannot defend themselves are involved, which is less common.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Oh, vana: Yes, I believe that SEX is vaginal intercourse. However, I still think it's possible to act in a sexual way without having vaginal intercourse.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
I was allso wondering what the LDS position is (if there is one) on limits of sexual practices between marriage partners? Would anything a married couple does together, in private, matter?

That's the part 2 of my question. I wondered if, since LDS focusses on healthy family relationships to the degree that they separate the couplse for part of their church service (where the wives learn how to better wives and mothers and the husbands learn how to be better fathers and husbands-- or so the missionaries told me in their ominously vague way), the subject of sexual practices is ever discussed.

I'm not seeting you up for some cutting remark. I really want to know.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Okay, just checking definitions.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Jac - Ah, I thought you mean a society, rather than a personal conflict of two masters.

In which case, I grant it can be difficult - but that's a personal struggle and not one I can really comment on.

PSI - I tend to define acceptable sexual practices as follows "the only participants are consenting adults." Violate either basic stricture, consenting or adults and we have a problem.

Other than that, float your boat how you please. It kinda ties up all the loose ends in describing what I feel is and is not acceptable.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
So, Bill Clinto really didn't have SEX with that woman. And Homosexuals don't have SEX either.

I'm not sure that's the definition a lot of people would use, but I DO understand your POV.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Right.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
And maybe I just like typing SEX in ALL CAPS like that.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

I was allso wondering what the LDS position is (if there is one) on limits of sexual practices between marriage partners? Would anything a married couple does together, in private, matter?

---

quote:

---

That's the part 2 of my question. I wondered if, since LDS focusses on healthy family relationships to the degree that they separate the couplse for part of their church service (where the wives learn how to better wives and mothers and the husbands learn how to be better fathers and husbands-- or so the missionaries told me in their ominously vague way), the subject of sexual practices is ever discussed.

---

quote:

---

Oh, vana: Yes, I believe that SEX is vaginal intercourse. However, I still think it's possible to act in a sexual way without having vaginal intercourse.

---

So, giving oral pleasure does not count as premarital sex? Anal penetration doesn't count as having premarital sex? Amazing.
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
Er...so the essay is ok?

Just checking.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
That point of view is actually fairly common.

Which leads to things like STD infections in the throat.

And I know of one or two Catholics who used that justification for their particular hanky-panky.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Justa, that's why there's been such a rise of oral sex among middle-school aged children. It's not seen as actual "sex."

space opera
 

---

Posted by Child of the Mind (Member # 1740) on :
 
I am curious about something; is it possible that sodomy was declared a "sin" in the bible for health reasons?

It is commonly beleived that certain rules in the Bible are for health reasons. Perhaps, because sexually transmitted diseases are spread more often by anal intercourse than by vaginal, sodomy was deemed sinful to preserve the health of the people?

It is just a hypothesis, but it may explain the passages. Of course, these days this wouldn't be a problem because of better contraception, etc.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Justa, I thought I should inform you that you are very good at putting disdain in everything you type. You might consider trying a little harder to be courteous. Just a suggestion.

Oh, and I did say that I classify oral and anal sex as sexual behaviors.

[ August 03, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
That's Jutsa's own personal charm.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
Hospitality wise, which works best?

quote:

---

Hospitality. Giving a warm reception to strangers harks back to the culture of the desert. Developed over centuries, where the desert environment bound traveling nomads to depend on the graciousness and generosity of others, hospitality enabled inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula to survive thirst, hunger and sudden raids/attacks. Many Middle Eastern peoples continue this custom of showing courtesy and consideration to strangers. Demonstrating friendliness, generosity and hospitableness become expressions of personal honor, even sacred duties.

---

quote:

---

"Southern hospitality" is deeply imbedded in the local culture of the southwestern United States where I grew up. This informal "code" of hospitality helped otherwise fiercely independent people get along with each other. There may be some similar factors in the background of the hospitality customs of the ancient Middle East. However, the biblical customs concerning how a person should treat travelers and temporary residents were much different. They were more than simply ways to be polite or friendly, and went beyond entertaining guests. Hospitality customs were a vital part of the culture of the ancient world. The people followed these customs as formal, even sacred, codes of conduct....

Continued...

---

 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Jacare: as always, our own debate on this boils down to whether one believes that homosexuals can be a valuable part of a community. I believe that they can. They can bond together, raise children (whether their own or adopted), and serve the community as upstanding and involved citizens.

Would a committed gay couple erode the community they were in? If not, why not let them join? If so, is it the fault of the gay couple's existence or the community's shortsightedness?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
See, Trevor, I get annoyed when this happens:

Me: "Blah blah."
Person A: "Did you just say Blah Blah?"
Me: "Yes."
Person A: "Okay just checking."
Person B: "Did you REALLY say "BLAH BLAH"???
Me: "You know, if you keep repeating it, it'll make people think it's really dumb."

It happens alot around here, with people popping in and questioning the same thing over and over with more and more disdain. I'll answer the same question fifty times as long as you're nice about it.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
S'why I don't interact with some people, PSI - not worth the energy it takes.

-Trevor

Edit: For typo

[ August 03, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I am curious, honesly curious, about one thing. Is it the act that is immoral or the fact that it's two people of the same sex doing it? What if a married couple has anal sex or engage in prostate massage or some such? Would that also be immoral for LDS? And whose business would THAT be, exactly?

---

*Very* good question. I think that for awhile the church spoke out against oral sex, I think because it so often degenerated into a man demanding his wife to do things that gave him pleasure and her none, but the church has pretty much backed off on that completely and said something to the effect of, "You two decide what you are comfortable with. As long as no one is being degraded or hurt, follow what feels right to you."

So my answer is that those things are OK in marriage according to LDS official doctrine *as long as* both are comfortable with it and no one is being forced to do something they find degrading. The idea is that sex between husband and wife is to be enjoyed. And when you are only having sex with one person, sometimes it is nice to experiment a little. But one should never hold the other "captive" to their own selfishness.

So yeah, the issue is about same-gender just as it is an issue between two people not married. (And homosexual marriage will not be accepted by the LDS church for reasons I have already stated.)

I have not read far enough yet to know if anyone else has answered this. I am curious to read other responses.

[ August 03, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
Well, it is on my site. I'll be sure to run entries through Hatrack from now on.

THANK YOU ALL!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sorry, HRE, I guess this thread really got out of control. I think your essay will be well received.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I have an odd view of family then. I don't just see it as the nuclear family, kids, a man and a woman...
I sometimes consider close tight friends as family...

But...
Somehow, we've got to break out of the mode of typical gayness arguments... Drives me up a tree..

*Horrified by that biblical story*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Certainly the number of nuclear families is declining. I personally feel it is a loss and am sad about it.

Those who did not have a positive family experience or did not experience a nuclear family at all, may have no emotional attachment to the traditional arrangements. They may not mind seeing it fading away.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

I sometimes consider close tight friends as family...

---

To me, one of the big differences is that you choose your friends.

I can tell you that there are members of my family that I would have never chosen to be friends with. But it is a good thing sometimes to be forced to deal with people like that.
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Isn't that what work is for?

(Actually, my coworkers tend to be really nice people, so I guess I'm lucky on that front. But I've heard plenty of horror stories.)
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
It's not the same thing. With family, dealing with them also involves trying to like and love them.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Mr. Head has a point - you can pick and choose friends. Family, you're stuck with.

Of course, I tend to avoid mine, but that's just me.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
HRE, I don't think your personal experience with Southern Hospitality adds to the otherwise relatively impartial tone of your piece.

LDS leaders have left the line at "unnatural uses". It is not "whatever works for you individually." They don't get specific, though.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Justa, I thought I should inform you that you are very good at putting disdain in everything you type. You might consider trying a little harder to be courteous. Just a suggestion.

Oh, and I did say that I classify oral and anal sex as sexual behaviors.

---

quote:

---

I do happen to find your view heaping with closed-mindedness, though.

---

Case and point.

Though I imagine your problem in this specific case is that PSI is using a very restricted definition of a word that you feel is her personal lexicon. People all have their own lexicons. Some are more far off from the dictionary than others, but we all have our own personal take on certain words.

I would say that if she used the phrase "sexual intercourse" instead of "sex", I would agree. It is what the dictionary says.

Main Entry: 1sex
Pronunciation: 'seks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4 : GENITALIA

Main Entry: sexual intercourse
Function: noun
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS
2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

[ August 04, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Justa, I don't have to defend myself. Your post argues against you.

Oh, and to be honest, I had never seen the dictionary definition of "sex" before. See what happens when you actually contradict a point instead of just grousing about how wrong it is? Amazing!

[ August 04, 2004, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Jacare: as always, our own debate on this boils down to whether one believes that homosexuals can be a valuable part of a community. I believe that they can. They can bond together, raise children (whether their own or adopted), and serve the community as upstanding and involved citizens.

Would a committed gay couple erode the community they were in? If not, why not let them join? If so, is it the fault of the gay couple's existence or the community's shortsightedness

---

quote:

---

I would say that if she used the phrase "sexual intercourse" instead of "sex", I would agree. It is what the dictionary says.

---

1. Coitus between humans.
2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

quote:

---

Oh, and to be honest, I had never seen the dictionary definition of "sex" before. See what happens when you actually contradict a point instead of just grousing about how wrong it is? Amazing!

---

quote:

---

How do you feel about the extended family? Is this also unamerican?

---

quote:

---

And if you honestly think I'm being a jerk, remember: I was kind until you treated my personal views with contempt. But as soon as you do that, it's on.

---

quote:

---

Jutsa, I'm judging things as they appear to me, that is true. It is based what I have observed. There are plenty of "non-believers" here, some more respectful than others. From what I have seen, your posts have been *less* respectful. Perhaps that is just the way you are and sound and you hold no more disdain than anyone else. I don't know what goes on in your head, I only hear what you say. And from what you say, it appears that you hold disdain for believers.

---

quote:

---

So, giving oral pleasure does not count as premarital sex? Anal penetration doesn't count as having premarital sex? Amazing.

---

quote:

---

Now, the "amazing" at the end can only mean one of two things. Either you were amazed in an interested way, or amazed in a sarcastic way. If you were truly interested, you could have made that known by asking more questions. But since you left it as succinct as possible (a good indicator of sarcasm) one is left to derive the meaning that seems most likely.

---

quote:

---

I have a question for you. Do you think PSI is "closeminded" only based on her definition of "sex"? (I can't imagine why though.) Or does it include other things as well? What is *your* judgement based on?

---

Since I only think she's being closed-minded on the issue of what sex is, it is clearly only from her answer to the definition of sex. Have I not shown how her definition does not fit the wider definition, which places her own personal definition as one of exclusive circumstances? That pretty well sums up being closed on the issue, as far as I can tell.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Gee, Justa, when did I say that I wasn't open to learning more about what sex is? As a matter of fact, I admitted that I had never read the definition of "sex" in the dictionary. How is that closed?

Of course, by the definitions given above, you also had sex the last time you made out, or the last time a dog humped your leg.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I gently said that I didn't hold the same definition of "sex" that she does. But I by no means think she is closeminded because of her definition. Do you think the Merriam Webster Online dictionary is "closeminded" because it's definition of "sexual intercourse" includes *only* penetration of the vagina by the penis?
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Come on, guys, this is getting ridiculus. All I wanted was to clarify what PSI meant, since she was using the word in a more restricted way than I (and most of the people I usually converse with) do. I was trying to avoid misunderstanding.

Instead, we've got an irrelevant argument going on about who's insulted whom and why. What does this have to do with anything, really? The intended meanings have been established - can we please move on? This was a really interesting discussion before all of this bickering came into it. I, for one, still hold out hope that it can continue to be an intersting discussion.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Would it be inappropriate for me to shut this conversation down by invoking Godwins Law, just to stop the bickering?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
PSI, if you want to continue to feel insulted, go ahead and do so without me bickering about my own motives, which I maintain I know better than you.

Beverly:

quote:

---

Do you think the Merriam Webster Online dictionary is "closeminded" because it's definition of "sexual intercourse" includes *only* penetration of the vagina by the penis?

---

If the Merriam Webster Online version of sexual intercourse is what you quoted above, perhaps you should read all of the definitions given carefully again.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
I don't know what Godwin's Law is.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I would define sex as at least including anything that would be safer if conducted wearing a condom. (And I'm not counting the things dentists can wear on their fingers. CT once referred to them as finger condoms, but I've always heard them called finger cots.)

I mean, if we aren't counting non vaginal sex then how do homosexuals have sex?

P.S. Godwins law is to throw in the word "nazi" on one side or the other.

[ August 04, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
Please do...
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
You are absolutely right, Vana. *backs off*
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I believe that one of the corollaries to Godwin's Law is that invoking Hitler and/or Nazis with the specific intention of ending a thread does not invoke Godwin's Law.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Oh yeah, I forgot that part of Godwin's Law.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Oh! Okay, I've heard of that, just didn't know the name.

Thanks!

(Thanks, PSI - I hope that didn't sound too brash - I'm just getting frustrated with the severe decline in actual discussion - arguments seem to be such a waste of time, you know?)
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Should I just stop posting, if people are going to dogpile me like this?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Maybe you ought tos think about whether or not there might be a reason why you are being dopiled? It certainly doesn't happen to everybody who expresses an unpopular opinion.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
It would be a shame if you were to do so, Justa. If you decide to stay, it's fairly likely that your posting style will eventually evolve into something that people find more palatable (note that I'm not saying anything at all about your opinions changing--just the manner in which you present them). There are a number of well respected members of the community who have started out being much more abrasive than you have, and have generally tempered their style until it works well for this site.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
My opinion isn't unpopular! The dictionary definitions comply with what I said about her exclusivity of opinion!

Guys, forget it. Just count me out of the discussion. Forget I ever posted in it. I'm not mad, but if the constant annoying "it's your problem" method is going to be applied here, then it's obvious nothing I have to say is going to be taken seriously in any way, and would just be exacerbating already wounded pride in others. So I'm respectfully bowing out of this discussion.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Justa

We don't want you to stop posting. You often give very good counter-viewpoints to issues and have made good points.

I just have to agree with the others that sometimes the WAY you say them is a little uncomfortable, even to read when I'm not in the conversation. I have nothing against most of the CONTENT of what you say, just the way you say it.

Others on here often disagree, but somehow the way you sometimes vocalize it sounds very much like a put-down.

I'm sure this is just because we aren't used to your particularly intensively-direct style yet. But you might just consider that we are all trying to tell you this in an "arm-around-the-shoulder" good friend way -- hoping that maybe you will see that sometimes the way you say things come across to others perhaps not in the way you intend to sound.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

...we are all trying to tell you this in an "arm-around-the-shoulder" good friend way...

---

quote:

---

If the Merriam Webster Online version of sexual intercourse is what you quoted above, perhaps you should read all of the definitions given carefully again.

---

Oops! My bad. I hate it when I make such ridiculous reading errors. Happens more often than I am comfortable with.

I am especially sorry that my misunderstanding has contributed to such a large and potentially hurtful misunderstanding.

[ August 04, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
It's okay, beverly. The definitions there are what I based my opinion from, even though I got it from a different dictionary that said the same thing.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
PSI wasn't offended at your opinion, Justa. She was offended at the way you put it across.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I will attempt to recompense my own errors by easing this discussion back to the interesting topics.

Vana had a very interesting point about rape and why does it matter what kind of rape it is. I think that is a valid point.

I also wish to say that I don't think someone having homosexual attraction or even acting on those attractions is cause for them to be struck by lightning or have their city burned.

I do, however, think that inflated instances of homosexuality in society *can* be symptoms of something wrong with the general trends of that society, unhealthy trends. For instance: I think that when a society that has much ease and idleness, it can lead to experimentation (arising out of boredom and seeking something new and interesting) that people wouldn't otherwise be inclined to. These experimentations effect the formation of families, which as I have explained before, I believe to be crucial.

I think God only destroys civilizations that have become so wicked that there is no hope of rising generations being taught in righteous ways. You have got to be pretty wicked before that happens.

This is a reoccurring theme in The Book of Mormon. The phrase "ripening for destruction" is used.

Also note the conversation between Abraham and God about preserving the city for the sake of righteous. Unfortunately, only one family qualified, and it made more sense to God have that family leave the city than to spare the society for just them.

I think that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality. But as I said, I think that an unusually high prevailance of homosexual behavior there was a symptom of the sickness.

Edit: Perhaps if I had phrased my first post this way, I wouldn't have made Lalo upset and this whole mess could have been avoided.

Where did Lalo go, anyway? If I say his name three times, will he magically appear?

Lalo! Lalo! Lalo!

[ August 04, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
That's the way I was taught as well, Bev, and I agree.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

PSI wasn't offended at your opinion, Justa. She was offended at the way you put it across.

---

No, you already stated that you assumed the worst. You were wrong. You refuse to admit this, despite my constant claims to the contrary. You are intentionally continuing to be offended, even after I stated long ago that I was not doing what offended you. For you, no matter what I said otherwise, it was "on."

And as a result, I got dogpiled.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Jutsa, I honestly didn't like how you said that first comment either, and I was hoping you would sincerely apologize, even if you meant no offense. It is too bad that it had to become such a big deal.

But it is more difficult to want to apologize when you feel that you have been unfairly judged. You could have included an apology in your first response to her, even while defending yourself about being disdainful. Not apologizing made you seem... more disdainful, ya know?

Everyone else feel free to ignore this post and respond to my other one!

[ August 04, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
You have a point, beverly, but when being unfairly prejudged, should the person be sorry for what they didn't do? After I bluntly said I wasn't being disdainful, PSI could have apologized for prejudging as well, but did not. The could-have-said-sorry thing goes both ways. I wasn't trying to offend, and never meant to offend, but the constant harrassment that came after is and was totally uncalled for.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
But enough about me. What do YOU think about me?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Well, here is what I teach my kids. I tell them that if they hurt someone "on accident" they still need to tell them that they are sorry. Not apologizing gives the impression that they didn't mind the pain that was caused, even if they didn't try to do it in the first place.

PSI could have apologized, but I don't think she believed you because your next response seemed disdainful also in that it seemed to show no concern for her having been hurt.

So while I agree that an apology ought to come from PSI also, I think it would be extraspecialllymagnanimous of her to apologize first.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Good grief, who was it who first complained about a persecution complex?

Edit: When phrases like, "Heaping with closed-mindedness" are used, that's an expression of contempt.

[ August 04, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Because there is obviously no malice in what you say, despite my disagreement about the circumstance you are equating it to (your kids), I do apologize for PSI taking offense where none was meant.

I would, however, like to point out that Rakeesh has now decided to join the dogpile.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Justa if you think this is a dogpile you need to be on hatrack longer.


AJ-- I've learned from experience
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
This reminds me of something that happened at home last night.

My 16 year old son (6'3", 250 pounds) was walking through the living room, and part of his foot accidently stepped on part of his sister's foot (she was sitting on the sofa.) This was extremely painful to her and she began to cry (and nearly choke on the drink she was in the process of swallowing).

I looked at him -- he proceed to go sit down and just looked at his sister. Didn't say anything. She got MORE upset, ran from the room, slamming the door to her room, etc.

He said, "I didn't mean to step on her foot." I said, "I know, but your LACK of compassion after you did is what upset her more. There was no "I'm sorry if I acccidentally hurt you" or any such things said at all. You acted like it didn't even matter to you that she was hurt. I think that hurt her more than stepping on her foot."

He seemed to think he owes her no apology, since the injury was totally unintentional. I say he should apologize simply because she was offended, whether it was on purpose or acccidental.

Farmgirl
(We women can be funny that way sometimes -- more offended by what you don't do, than by what you do)

edit: oh, and see? While I typed that, Justa showed he could be gallant and apologize. That was nice. Glad you didn't leave the thread, Justa.

[ August 04, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Point it out, write it down, take a picture if you'd like

Edit: Oh, and by the way. "I'm sorry for her taking offense where none was meant," isn't an apology. It's a criticism.

[ August 04, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
"Apologize to your sister."

"Ok. I'm sorry that she's such a doo-doo head."
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
He apologized FOR me, Farmgirl. That's like saying, "I'm sorry her foot was in my way."

Edit: I don't want an apology. If Justa didn't mean to be snarky, then I am truly sorry I got so annoyed. I shouldn't have jumped all over him before he even had a chance to explain, which I did.

[ August 04, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
I didn't apologize for you, I apologized for what you took as offense, even though I didn't say it. I won't apologize for what I really said, after all. There was no offense meant in it.

Really, guys, comparing me to teenage siblings is just more name-calling. I'm not offended, just annoyed. All you're doing is strengthening my impression that has grown since first coming here. Individually, you are all very nice and considerate people. When there is a perceived threat, though, even if no threat is there, you quickly become just the same catty, rude, and in considerate bunch that every other forum on the internet is.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Actually, that's pretty dead-on.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
And that's not another insult, is it? Wow. You should work for a political campaign!
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
That's not an insult, it's a criticism. Perhaps you should self-evaluate and consider whether or not that criticism is accurate, Rakeesh.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would argue that the criticism is not, in fact, accurate, and we as a community have been remarkably polite in dealing with you.

If you continue to stick out your chin and refuse to come down a peg, though -- and let's be honest, here: you're not being contrite because you're way, way too proud to show any contrition, or even pretend that you should -- I'd imagine that you'll find yourself less popular than you already are. This will only accelerate if you begin to criticize the forum at large for failing to recognize the rightness of your behavior.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It is true that when someone is being particularly trollish on Hatrack, all of Hatrack unites regardless of their differing POV and gives them a tough time until they shape up or ship out.

Happens all the time.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
And yet, as I've noted before, we are not catty, rude, or inconsiderate when doing so.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I kinda am. *thinks of Stargate*
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I found it particularly amusing that in a thread dealing with religion and homosexuality, both KarlEd and TomDavidson were supporting beverly. That really says something.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I'm curious Justa--if an author writes something, intending it to convey what we'll call "Tone A", but virtually all of the people who read that author's passage feel that it conveys "Tone B", do you feel that the readers are wrong? Is it possible for an author to convey something other than what they intended in a written passage?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yeah, I was kinda rude when dealing with OSC-fan.

<whiney voice> But she started it!</whine>
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Oh, I can be pretty catty and rude in dealing with Justa. But that's just me. I'm hardly indicative, since one poster doesn't make a community, and Beverly and PSI Teleport do not make a dogpile.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
However, in our defense, I would argue that we are never more catty or rude than the person who's getting it.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

and let's be honest, here: you're not being contrite because you're way, way too proud to show any contrition, or even pretend that you should

---

You mean it's not because I have been wrongfully accused, as you just did again?

This is really getting ridiculous. Maybe I should just not ever have motives of my own, and let everyone else decide them for me? Not only that, but I'm now being called trollish?

Bye, guys. It's been fun while it lasted. The self-righteousness here is too much for me to handle. To those I've had good conversations with, I hope we bump into each other out there. It's a small world.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Okay, I take it back. Some of you guys are, indeed, occasionally catty and rude.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
...but never at dusk.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Each day I become more impressed by Tom's analytical skills involving other people.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Darn tootin', Tom
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Yeah, get it right, Tom.

(Pretend that this post came before the one above it, and it's better.)

[ August 04, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---