I stand by what I say.

The story of Sodom and Gamora doesn't mention sex, hence you have to read sex into it.

I am just not of the mindset to read "to know" as "have sex with" when both subject and object of the word are men.

We can leave it at that. I am, when it comes down to it, a literalist, and KFC and Lula tend to interpret more and read metaphors into the text. I don't know who is right, but I prefer a religion in which hospitality is regarded as more of a virtue than homosexuality is regarded as a sin.

Well, I for one support gay marriage.  God wiping out Sodom and Gamora? Fairy tales.  Satan? Fairy tales.  Gay marriage destroying civilization as we know it?  Utter lunacy.  I usually keep my atheist thoughts to myself.  But when some on this thread post their religious dogma as infallable fact, well... it just comes out.  Apologies to Zubaz if this post causes unnedded contention in your thread.

When you take away dogma and disgust and just being "different", same-sex couples aren't that different from what we have now.

No, ancient legend.

Yes.

Yes.

No, you don't. You make it very clear that you are arguing from the assumption that there is no god and that hence we have to figure this out ourselves. The problem with that position is that it won't prevent us from figuring out that gay marriage is wrong and that all gays should be executed immediately.

The belief in a loving god reminds us that we cannot just do to others whatever we have the power to do to them.

TALTIMER POSTS:

So now the argument is that the sin here in Genesis is not homosexuality per se, but rape..violence forcing sexual activity. Could be for don't the men after being rebuffed by Lot fully intend to brutilize Lot's guests? Bottom line is they were homosexuals who wanted sex with Lot's visitors.

LEAUKI POSTS:

That they wanted "to know" means they were after sex becasue Lot immediately offered his daughters to the men (itself a disgraceful act), which would otherwise be inexplicable.

While Scripture is filled with metaphors, this story in Genesis when read in its full context is not a metaphor. It tells of God's judgment and should be a lesson to us.

Those who interpret Genesis and see the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as one of inhospitality rather than of homosexuality are looking at it through smoke and mirrors. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for inhospitality. This is typical way of explaining away of an embarrassing biblical passage to fit the modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda.  

It is inexplicable to Europeans, not to middle-easteners. Back in the day women were considered property. Judaism changed that, but it was the standard way. (That's why a man could "marry" several women but not vice versa.)

I disagree with your reading that "to know" means "to have sex with" in a context where both subject and object are men. Offering daughters (aka property) was an acceptable way to deal with what would have been a breach of hospitality if it had been allowed to happen. It's disgraceful, certainly, but only according to Jewish standards, not by the standards of the Canaanite and Aramaean tribes (including Lot, an Aramaean who had crossed over the Jordan river) that lived in Sodom back then.

It's not a metaphor, as you say. It doesn't mention sex and it's not a metaphor for sex.

Can you explain in detail please how the Talmudists of the second century and Rabbi Nachmanides of the 13th century were influenced by or hoping to advance the "modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda"?

VarekRaith posts:

As far as infallible...there is only one truth and truth is in possession. On the question of whether or not homosexual "marriage" destroys civilizations, I believe it does and you believe it doesn't. Only one of us has the truth.

And may I ask you one question...

Who has that one truth?

1. G-d, the Creator of the world Who refrains from giving us proof for even His existence let alone the exact mechanism of His doing.

2. You.

Leviticus refers a lot of things as abominations, not just homosexuality.  It claims that eating shellfish is an abomination for example.

But the government is supposed to be secular in nature.  Once you start involving government in religion (and vice versa) bad things start happening.

So you agree that the institute of marriage is already perverted by allowing divorce.  So why not allow gay marriage, or civil unions if the word marriage bothers you?

I still don't see how this impacts the stability of the family.  So what if they can't produce their own children, aren't their plenty of kids out there who need to be adopted into loving homes?  What makes them unfit parents?

What about those of us who don't believe in god?  Why are we to be bound by your rules?

How can you argue that something that occurs in nature is unnatural?  By definition if it happens in nature it is natural.

Wrong, just plain wrong.  I have seen video footage from multiple studies done (shown on the discovery channel) where they saw chimps in the wild having sex with members of the same-sex all the time.  In fact it appeared that the only reason they had heterosexual sex was to procreate, otherwise they has sex with members of the same sex.

Last time I checked we have absolutely problems with low population growth and overflowing orphanages so this is just not true.

Homosexuals are not all rapists and not all rapists are homosexual so to draw that conculsion is absurd.  What does it matter if they were homosexuals or not, if you want to interpret sex from this I would have to agree with Leauki that what they are trying to do here is rape which I would agree is a sin (if I were religious).

The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________Should NOT be anymore involved than allowing Homosexual Marriage the same as Heterosexual Marriage. Equal rights. Period.

Two people in a bed is already a crowd....I wouldn't want the Federal/State Gov'ts. in addition.

Leauki posts:

Again, same-sex "marriage" is part of the homosexualists offensive to impose a moral revolution. The homosexual movement is attempting to make the immoral moral. The only thing today that stands in the way is Christianity.  In order for the homosexualists to acheive their goal and shatter religious opposition to homosexuality, they must cast liberal teachings against traditional teachings of Christianity. 

It has always been known through Natural Law, the Biblical record, as well as the writings of the Church Fathers that the cities were burned with fire from Heaven becasue of the sin of homosexuality. This has always been clear and the only way around this obstacle is to find theologians and writers influenced who change the focus of the chastisement from sodomy to other sins. In this way they dilute or deny the gravity of unnatural vice as one of the "sins that cries out to Heaven for vengence." Gen. 19:13.

Hebraic, (biblical) Judaism certainly condemned sodomy and there is no merit whatsoever for the Talmudists to teach Sodom was punished for inhospitality (as you claim).

Morality is subjective.  What is moral to you may be immoral to another, and vice versa.

The mormon's once taught that slavery and/or segregation was justified because their religious text said it was, did that make slavery and/or segregation right?  They have since changed their ways, but it took a while.

This is the same kind of thing.

really?  Where?  Funny El-D you seem to know so much about scripture that you don't read. 

No Leauki.  Wrong.  I'm about as literal as they come and this passage taken literally reads pretty simply.  You're making it much harder by reading into it what you want to read into it.  In fact in all my years of studying the bible I've never ever heard it interpreted the way you bring up.  I've read Genesis probably at least 50 times over the last 40 years and studied it at length at least half that amount. 

well you just contradicted yourself.  You're saying that it has nothing to do with homosexuality but yet you admit that the men of the town wanted to have (rough) sex with male angels?  Isn't that a contradiction?  And we're retarded?  On top of that I find it quite amazing how dogmatic you are and how knowledgable about this subject you are when you already admitted you hadn't read the passage in what...20 years?  Quite interesting.....you're making my head hurt.  Yet I just got done reading Genesis (month of January) and I know not what I'm talking about? 

You are very naive when it comes to your grandparents......believe me grandparents have sex!  I "know" that for sure. 

Why don't you ask them and get back to us? 

no, one does not choose to be a slave....but one does choose whom to have sex with. 

God has the truth.  And he's given us plenty of proof.  His fingerprints are everywhere.  But that's another subject and getting off the trail.