How?

That became my stance a while back too.  The government should be completely secular which includes it's rules on marriage.

I understand what you're saying and you actually have hit on an ongoing debate amongst Christians.  There are some who believe we should stay out of any type of government business or lawmaking and just concentrate on the word of God and being good citizens of the Kingdom of God.  We are representing the King in heaven, not the kings of the earth.  I know some religious groups that actually frown on voting.  Jesus said we are to be in the world but to be separate from the world at the same time.  They take that to the extreme I guess. 

Then there are others who believe that we need to use our influence and knowledge of Godly things and try to engage our culture by being on boards and in government and all that goes with that. 

My husband is a strong Christian man and separates himself from the culture of the world and says..."let them do whatever it is they want because we're not called to be political."  As a preacher he stays out of the political fray. 

Jerry Falwell and James Dobson started their own persepective ministries The Moral Majority and Focus on the Family years ago because they saw Christians were, in their minds, not engaging the culture and being in their minds, too passive when it came to politics.  They saw more and more of our Christian rights being trampled on coming out of the sixties and early seventies so they became leaders of the Christian right to help influence the Christians to action. 

I tend to vaciliate between the two sometimes.  I look at Christ and see how he wasn't political in the least and said basically to bring the world the good news. If they listen to you, you've gained a brother and if they don't move on.  He never insisted we become political zealots.  But then on the other hand if we don't speak up in a democracy such as ours our children will be force fed a belief system that is far from where God wants us to be. 

And the law of man does affect everyone.  If we are living in a culture that is perverted (and we are fast becoming universally perverted) of course it's going to affect us.  We can't live in a dirty neighborhood without getting some dirt on ourselves as we walk in and amongst the filth. 

No, No No Leauki.  It's not about hospitality at all.  Not even close. 

Think about it.  Would God totally destroy a city because they weren't hospitable?  Especially since Lot insisted they stay with him?  Lot met them at the gate, bowed down to them and offered to wash their feet and have them spend the night before they even stepped foot in the city.  Your viewpoint makes no sense. 

But then again, would God destroy a city because of sexual pervision especially since the OT is loaded with warnings about this problem?  Do you remember the story of Aaron and the golden calf and the sexaul perversion associated with that?  Many were destroyed that day also.  I'm afraid you're a product of revisionism Leauki.  It's not PC to bring up Sodom is it?  What is the definition of Sodomy? 

Go back to Chap 18 and read this:

"The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me." 

So now you have to ask yourself and be totally objective.....would there be an outcry that reached God's ears over hospitality or could it be something much more grievous?  So grievious and wicked was this city there are many references to this city in the NT. 

Afraid so.

Why not? Hospitality is a duty towards others, homosexuality is, if anything, a sin against G-d alone. I find it far more likely for a loving god to destroy a city for failing its duty towards others than for that god to destroy a city for failing its duty towards the god.

I'm afraid it's the traditional rabbinic viewpoint. And I am positive that it makes a lot of sense to anyone who doesn't have an irrational fear of homosexuality.

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw this."

Rabbi Nachmanides wrote in the 13th century CE:

"According to our sages, they were notorious for every evil, but their fate was sealed for their persistence in not supporting the poor and the needy."

Hardly. The Talmud tells us more of the cities and it specifically says that it was about hospitality (or lack thereof). This is hardly revisionism. The Talmud was compiled between 200 and 500 CE.

The modern meaning (in the last few centuries) is "deviant sexual intercourse", its original meaning was "acts of wickedness" and it referred to all the wicked acts of the people of Sodom.

I believe Islam believes in the same connection between Lot and homosexuality as you do. But I'm afraid that is the revisionism. The original tale just speaks of inhospitality, it took hundreds of years to make it into a story about homosexuality and another thousand to change the meaning of the word.

(In modern German "Sodomie" refers to sex with animals. Another way of reading the story, perhaps.)

What sin could possibly be more grievous than a lack of hospitality?

In a region where the common greeting between people is "peace", hospitality is the highest virtue.

We can discuss the NT's focus on the homosexual community some other time. I personally have no quarrel with the gay community and do not promote myself to the position of judge over them.

But you are applying todays values to the story.  Maybe at the time that it "happened" it was more wicked to be inhospitable.  Like I said I'm not biblical scholar but just a thought on another possible interpretation.

Sure the laws of man affect everyone but who are you to tell us what is perverse and what isn't?  Perversion is a very subject thing much like morality.  What is perverse and/or immoral to you is not to someone else.  It is NOT the governments place to dictate what is moral and what is not.  Homosexualtiy between two consenting adults does not harm anyone so the government shouldn't restrict it.  If the government allows homosexual civil unions that does not force you to recognize it as a marriage, it merely grants the same benefits as marriage to the couple from a legal standpoint.

where does it say anything in there about the poor and needy?  And how do you know this Rabbi wasn't "gay?"  If he were, he would be looking in another direction for sure. 

It's quite obvious that Lot was offering his daughters instead and it's also quite clear it was all about sex. 

"Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said "no my friends.  Don't do this wicked thing (hospitality?????).  I have two daughers 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." 

Your rabbi says it has to do with the poor and needy?  That makes sense to you?  Are you not guilty of following blindly a leader who is leading you down a wrong path? 

Ok I get it Leauki...that's the diff between me and you.  I don't look outside of scripture for my answer.  You are looking at the Talmud for your answers.  I believe the Talmud is written by men and the bible authored by God.  But in this case I don't even have to go to any companion scripture (although there is enough) I can get the meaning from the plain reading of the text.

So be it. 

El-D....let me ask you this and please answer me honestly...have you read Chap 18 (end of)  and 19 of Genesis in context to get the plain meaning of the text? 

It has nothing about applying today's values one twit.  The text has NOTHING to do with hospitality unless you want to say "gross inhospitality" meaning they wanted to "know" them way too well. 

rebellion against God.............. which is EXACTLY what sexual pervision is.  Remember David's prayer to God in Psalm 51 over his sexual sin with Bathsheba?  Go read it. 

We've gone a bit off track  . . but theses things do happen.

Interestingly, in California similar disscussions are going on.  I still think it would be nice if the state stayed out of God's business and vice versa

Court hears Prop. 8 arguments

Attorneys trying to persuade the California Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage began making their case to the justices this morning.

Shannon Minter, an attorney representing same-sex couples who sued to overturn Proposition 8, told the justices that their decision last year legalizing gay and lesbian marriages was "a resounding and eloquent affirmation of our Constitution's foundational guarantee of equal citizenship. It is today's case that will determine whether future generations of Californians can continue to count on that guarantee."

The state's voters overturned the court's 4-3 ruling when they approved Prop. 8 in November. Attorneys for same-sex couples, local governments led by San Francisco and state Attorney General Jerry Brown are in court this morning urging the court to overturn the constitutional amendment, which declared that marriage only between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

[More]

Do I care if that rabbi was gay?

I used his testimonial to prove to you that my interpretation of the text is ancient.

I said the daughters thing was about sex. The point is that what the men outside the house wanted was not said to have been sex.

Are you arguing that since Lot thought that men can have sex with girls, everything else in the tale had to be about sex too?

How can it be the wrong path if it keeps me from condemning people who have done nothing wrong to any other human being?

What homosexuals do to each other with their consent is between them and G-d. And a path that keeps me away from judging them is certainly the right path.

The Talmud contains much that is missing in the written Bible. But that wasn't my point. You claimed that your interpretation is the older, original one and that mine is revisionism. Do you acknowledge now that since mine is from the Talmud it is at least as old as the Talmud?

You say you get the meaning from the plain reading of the text.

But the text doesn't mention sex. You are reading sex into the word "to know" because sometimes that same word can mean "have sex". But it can also mean "to know". You are choosing the metaphor over the literal interpretation because you want the text to be about homosexuality.

I am afraid that makes me the literalist, not you; because I read the word "to know" and do not interpret it as meaning anything other than "to know".

Your non-literal interpretation is a common one; but even if it were right, it is NOT _literal_.

To prevent confusion:

While my rabbi too told the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gamora as the result of the cities' lack of hospitality and egoism, rabbi Machmanides actually lived in Israel in the 13th century when he said the same thing.

I haven't read it in a good 20 or so years.  I mearly offering a possible explanation as to why you and Leauki seem to have differing opinions.  Personally I wouldn't care if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah came right out and said "Homosexuality is the ultimate sin and all those who practice it shall perish in the firy pits of hell".  I am not Christian, nor am I Jewish, nor am I Muslim so whatever the bible says has absolutely no application to my life.

First of all I'd love to hear more of you officiating at marriages, Zubaz! How wonderful! Amazing how much I learn every day (Thank you, G-d).

I believe we're all hobbled by terms: Holy Matrimony, Marriage, Civil Union all denote something different to me:

1. Holy Matrimony: A voluntary wedding held between 2 individuals in keeping with the Laws of a specific religion and complying with the law of the State in which it is licensed by a person holding the required status by that religion and the State to perform the act.

2. Marriage: A voluntary wedding held between 2 individuals agreeing to abide by the laws of the licensing Stae and any additional contractual agreements (rules) mutually agreed upon officiated by a licensed State or other, mutally agreed upon official duly licensed to perform the act.

3. Civil Union: A voluntary, contractual union/association between two individuals performed by a mutually agreed upon licensed individual.

To me, category 3 is a legal catch all for folks not wishing for whatever reason to marry.

To be clear: I absolutely favor Marriage in all it's forms as a stabilizing Societal influence.

I do not believe the Creator of the Universe has anything to do with our human folly and prejudices. The opposite. Homosexuals (male and female) have equal rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  More: In Americas, we have the obligation (all of us) to fight to the death for our fellow citizens and their EQUAL rights. And to keep religion FAR away from our legal processes.

Don't quote sections of the Gospel/Tanach/Qur'an, etc. Quote it's Spirit.

This Republic, OUR Democracy is not for the faint hearted nor the hypocritical.

It is a fierce, vibrant and driving force which exposes and expunges the double standards and prejudices which hobble us all.

Nice post Doc.  Thanks for sharing.