I was 8 years old when I first read that story, I didn't know that homosexuality existed until I was 13. So, no... the moral of "rape is bad" seems to fit. Also that is what I got from the story of amnon and tamar.

And as an atheist I see homosexuality as a reproductive disorder (it prevents it). So its not like I am trying to "further the gay agenda" here.

I just consider rape to much a much more serious issue than "ickky" and unnatural consentual sex. Specifically, the rape one is a horrible thing that should be punished, the gay thing is not a crime and should be at most pitied, and never persecuted for it.

Your suggestion that anyone who dares suggest that rape is a more serious offense than homosexuality is a "modern homosexualist, hedonist" furthering the gay agenda would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening...

PS. Hedonism is a school of philosophy which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance and is the most important pursuit of humanity.

I don't know what closet you are in lula, but homosexuality isn't hedonism for me, it holds not "secret pleasures" to a comfortable hetrosexual...

HOWEVER, It is tiresome when everyone always accuses gay bashers of being in the closet... I am just gonna chulk this one up to you being ignorant of the definition of hedonism. And not the externalization of what you beleive is satan temping you with cock.

Whoops...for some reason my last paragraph didn't make it.

To answer the question in the OP, absolutely agree it'll take Federal action (and I support the suit as well).

The major problem (besides prejudice) revolves I beleve, around the point that should one State pass a resolution into law that marriage between homosexual couples is recognized equally with heterosexual marriage, all States must recognize the couple as married...it's a point in Constitutional Law...but should some or any of the 50 deny that, then there is a Constitutional crisis.

To prevent that, passing a Federal statute would, I believe enforce that recognition. I could well be wrong. To me, refusing a Federal Law on a State level smacks of sedition and would invite an "Old Miss" type action. Maybe not...after all, "Sanctuary Cities" exist where Federal law is breeched with impunity (NOT to start that topic).

I must have missed the eleventh commandmant "thau shalt not fornicate with a fellow man"

Leauki:

Busted!  You underestimate me.  As I've told you already,  I've got a vast library that spans the generations.  So I pulled down Josephus from my shelf and read this from "Antiquities of the Jews." 

"Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodgings in his house and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed he wold expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers-neither thus were they made ashamed." 

So here you go from the 1st Century from Josephes showing you quite clearly it's not new and it's quite literal.  I don't know why you keep saying I'm not being literal.  I'm reading this in the most literal sense and not using any sort of symbolic language at all.   So now I'm starting to wonder if maybe your Jewish Rabbi of the 13 Century didn't have more to say about this than you're willing to show us?  What you gave me from Josephus is very subjective on your part. 

Also, here's another example  written before Josephus thus older than both him and the Talmud.   Jude wrote somewhere around 70-90 AD and said this about Sodom:

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

The whole reason Sodom was destroyed was for an example to the other surrounding nations and the reason why God included Abraham in his plan (Gen 18) in the first place. 

The thing that is most interesting in this section Leauki (did you notice?) is the fact that there are some things that are worse than homosexuality and other sexual deviant behavior according to God because he said Sodom and Samaria's sins were not nearly as bad as Jerusalem's were.   But did you not notice the "abominable things" mentioned here?  What is that? 

See what you're seeing is a progression of sin.  First comes riches, excesses and then follows pride and selfishness that gives way to doing whatever it is they want to do because they feel there is nothing to stop them.  The money and the power has given them a reprobate mind so naturally they follow this to the extreme with all sorts of abomination. 

This is seen everyday in our world around us.  Our examples are the movie stars, politicians and the elite of our culture.  It's no wonder we are where we are right now.  In our country today even the poor are rich in comparison to the poor of yesteryear.  We have been increasingly coming to this point for years now and this is the last straw and  our nation will be judged and found wanting. 

Zubaz

He will.  Ok, let's start with the following statement you made and see if you really mean what you say about following his son. 

Jesus said that we "are to be in the world but NOT of the world."   He also said that he would send the Holy Spirit as our comfortor to guide us in our time here on earth. 

It sounds like by your comment that you are quite comfortable in this mortal world and have set up shop.  For Christians who are to follow Christ, we are not to look upon this mortal world as our home.  We are just passing through.  Our home is not here.  He said he was going to prepare a place for us and will return to take us to his home (like a Jewish wedding). 

He didn't leave it for interpretation.  It has only one interpretation but many applications.  All thru this "holy book" you mention are exhortations to read it, meditate on it, study it and test it.  Are you doing that?  There are also many warnings about those from the outside who want nothing but to distort, destroy and discourage us from understanding this book by throwing in all sorts of obstacles and false teachings to sway us and confuse us.   So if it seems wrong from your perspective you're listening to much to the "mortal world" and not God himself who left this book here to reveal himself to us.  One day we will be asked, "what did you do with my word I left you?"    God is all about order but the world is all about chaos and confusion. 

God allows it to happen that is true but it's not God's desired will.  Once sin entered the world the rest followed.  In the beginning all was good.  Once the pandora's box was opened God allowed it to stay open.  My understanding of the scriptures is that there's a reason behind the whole thing.  There's a definite plan going on including the sin of homosexuality and our participating in it is not a good thing.   You can show love to your neighbors in many ways without accepting their lifestyle.  I believe we should embrace homosexuals like we would anyone else in society but that does not mean we are to accept a lifestyle that God has time and time again told us not to engage in nor accept as an alternative.  It's an outright sin against God just as adultery or any other sexual sin.  So when we encourage them in this way, we are in effect not loving them at all.

Yes, you have a correct understanding of the agape love of God.  I recently heard of a family whose 21 year old daughter died.  Instead of anger and resentment towards God they had nothing but blessing and thankfulness towards God for allowing them to have this precious girl for 21 years.  They had the correct and proper understanding that our children are not ours but God's and that he appointed us managers of them.  Someday we will be held accountable for how we took care of this precious treasure.  Did we bring our children to him?  Or did we sacrifice them to the gods of the world? 

Sorry.  Can't do it.  Can't go along with "all the mess is someone else's fault" when he/she/it created it all.  And either there's a plan and all this is part of it and he's a jerk or he kick started everything and walked away.

I'm like Fox Moulder from the X-Files.  I want to believe.  I want to have faith.  But if I have teh right idea about God's love compared to my daughters . . then he would stop that which is hateful to him to the same degree I would with my kids.  Without him acting in some way like that . . what is there to believe in or have faith in?

God as described in the christian bible is a sadistic prick with the emotional development of a 4 year old.

Must have missed the response to 135 and 137 somewhere.

Again, G-d being anthropomorphized. Love between humans is that. I wouldn't speculate re: G-d's love or not. Again you think that G-d "stands" aroung like some type of referee preventing and protecting, when more than ample empiric evidence  points out the fallacy in that.

Faith is simply that. Faith. It is not dependent on stopping or starting anything. If you need rainbows in the sky and all sorts of "actions"/"preventions" etc., then you're not really talking about faith, are you?

I think "busted" was when I reminded you that G-d had decided to destroy Sodom and Gamora BEFORE the event with the angels and that hence the event you cited had nothing to do with that decision.

I used Josephus as an example for another scholar who agreed that Sodom and Gamora were destroyed because of inhospitality. What he interprets into the word "to know" is quite immaterial. As Taltamir has explained rape is immoral. There is no requirement for the rape to be of a homosexual nature to be immoral.

Can you tell me why raping angels (and I still don't believe that that is what they wanted to do, Josephus had a dirty mind) is a "homosexual" act? Angels do not have a defined sex, surely.

If you want a compromise, I will admit that trying to rape angels is wicked. (I would go as far as saying that it is inhospitable.)

So the Bible simply TELLING us directly that it was is not enough? And you still wonder why I don't think of you as a literalist?

It needs faith to believe that these things happened to the patriarchs.

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Lev. 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Lev. 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Lev. 11:12)
"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard." (Lev. 11:13)
"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." (Lev. 11:20)
"Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination." (Lev. 11:42)

And the inference that can be taken from all of the above passages is that if you eat any of those items then you too can be regarded as an abomination.

Not to mention some other things that are regarded as abominations in Deuteronomy:

In Duet. 24:4 remarrying your wife after she has remarried with someone in between is an abomination.  In Duet. 22:5 it is an abomination for a man to wear woman's clothing and vice versa which includes a woman wearing pants at all (Hillary Clinton is a major violator of this one).

But did you choose who you fell in love with?  I know I didn't, it hit me like a ton of bricks.  Why should someone not be allowed to make a lifelong commitment to another just because they happen to share the same equipment?  I'm not asking for any church to be bound to accept the union, just for the law to recognize it.

That is a matter of parenting.  If you don't want your kids to do something then don't let them or council them that you think it's wrong.  Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed for others.  Remember I'm not asking you to accept these unions as marriages merely that they are entitled to the same legal rights as a married couple (ie taxes, estate transfer, medical proxy, etc).

If you actually believe this crap there is no hope to argue with you.

Very well said.  Government should be secular in nature, that's what our founders wanted and that is what we should continue doing.

Exactly.  Why should religion have any bearing on government?  If you or anyone else happens to be a member of a religion that doesn't accept homosexualtiy that's fine but that shouldn't bar homosexuals from being able to join in civil unions, it just means they can't get married in your religious institution.

That legislature is elected by the people, I assume. Hence people's opinions matter. My opinion is certainly shaped by my religious beliefs (and vice versa).

So why exactly is my opinion worth less than yours just because it happens to be based on a religion?

To be honest, I don't know what homosexuals do for sex. As far as I know there are only two groups of people who know a lot about it: homosexuals and those fanatically interested in homosexual behaviour and practices.

Incidentally, I don't eat seafood that doesn't have fins and scales. I don't eat shellfish or birds of prey or insects. (You will find that certain land animals are also "abominations" and must not be eaten.) Again, this is for Jews only.