Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sodomy didn't mean the same thing back then either. It was common for men, especially in the upper classes to engage in homosexual sex acts. The punitive term was reserved for men who were penetrated sexually, not the penetrators. Rules and laws regarding homosexuality were as they are now very dependent upon context and never fully set in stone. The ancient Jews wrote their rules regarding sodomy in response to the social mores of the ancient Babylonians during captivity, though in their societies later on the same acts of male homosexual penetration occurred among wealthier individuals, as was common for the period.
Likewise the early Roman republic condemned penetrative male homosexual activity seeing it as an entirely Greek custom, though only later to openly accept it during the Empire as ancient Greek society was less demonized. Again as with the Babylonians and even the Israelites, acceptance largely fell upon social and class lines, this time seen as part of the master/slave and elder/younger social power dynamic.
The royal court of Henry VIII issued arguably the first modern edict on homosexual acts, again in response to the social mores of other societies, in this case wealthier patrons and nobility who took up the hobby after witnessing and often partaking in homosexual activities during visits to the royal courts of mainland Europe. In essence however the spirit of the laws were meant to remove the activities from the larger public eye, not to forbid them outright, as it was seen as a sign of the decadence of nobility and royalty.
It's a dangerous teleologic fallacy to apply modern terms to ancient societies which if we were to hop in a time machine and travel back to would seem completely alien to us.
This may very well be your opinion. It's certainly a valiant attempt at spin. I would suggest, however, that anyone interested in this discussion actually read the Sodom story in Genesis of the New English Bible. The story is clear and straightforward (you remember that the city was destroyed).
More broadly, my point is that homosexuality (a species of sodomy) has long been considered immoral according to traditional concepts of morality, as a number of posters here have argued. One can then argue that traditional morality is inappropriate, or not, but that's a different question. But the idea that homosexuality is not immoral by traditional standards is wrong.
So why the shift? At least a couple of reasons: (1) the homosexual community has become a target for advertisers, as homosexual couples have a lot of discretionary money, lacking the traditional adult responsibilities having to do with child raising, and (2) the increasing domination of the media by homosexuals. To sense these two factors coming together, just read the Style section or the Arts section of the New York Times.
Again, you're making the mistake of assigning modern concepts and terms to an ancient society by way of a fourth order interpretation of a third order translation of a text written several thousand years ago.
So why the shift? At least a couple of reasons: (1) the homosexual community has become a target for advertisers, as homosexual couples have a lot of discretionary money, lacking the traditional adult responsibilities having to do with child raising, and (2) the increasing domination of the media by homosexuals. To sense these two factors coming together, just read the Style section or the Arts section of the New York Times.
I hate style and arts. I like outdoors stuff and I am SUPER excited for March 12th when Charlotte's US National White Water Center is open for White Water Rafting!
I love going to watch the planes take off at Charlotte airport, hiking, biking, working out at the Y, boats, fishing, and cars. I love fishing at the Hot Hole over by that plant in Lake Norman. Fish are jumping out of the water there.
So, if gay people are taking over the media in the style and arts section, I wouldn't notice because I don't read the style and arts section
Anyway. I don't think religion should even be part of the discussion. It makes no sense at all that religion would even be brought up. If we lived in a theocracy, perhaps. But we don't live in a Theocracy. So why religion is brought up is beyond me.
Again, you're making the mistake of assigning modern concepts and terms to an ancient society by way of a fourth order interpretation of a third order translation of a text written several thousand years ago.
Again, I would encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read the story of Sodom as reported in the New English Bible, and make his or her own decision.
The word sodomy came into French and then into English from this story. The meaning of the word is straightforward (Webster's, OED). The story too is quite straightforward; there is no need to invoke layers of pedantic sophistry to understand its meaning. It is a crystal clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality (which may or may not be important -- personally, I don't care). But this is counter to the suggestion planted earlier in this thread, and more widely in modern American culture, including the Episcopal Church, that Biblical condemnations of homosexuality are either non-existent or trivial (trivial because of their association with the laws of Leviticus).
Bottom line for me -- the arguments of the pro-homosexuality crowd here are either commercially motivated (check the sponsors associated with this thread), willfully deceitful born from a self-interested desire for acceptance, misinformed (mostly, probably), or the product of epistemic closure.
I'm beginning to yawn again, so you may have the last word of our conversation if you so choose.
^ What if someone is not Christian. What is your argument then? Out of Curiosity.
There IS no secular argument against homosexuality. It just makes some people uncomfortable, so they use religion as an argument against it.
Bottom line: we don't live in a theocracy. We live in a representative democracy that is supposed to provide a separation between church and state in all matters of law.
Ergo, there really is no legal reason to forbid gay people the right to marry (in a civil sense).
If individual churches don't wish to hold gay wedding ceremonies, that's up to them.
For what it's Worth, Lets Take note of some Pro Civil Union people;
Glenn Beck
Quote:
Glenn Beck has completely and shamelessly surrendered on the issue of gay marriage, and did so on Bill O’Reilly’s program, only the most watched cable news program in all TV land.
Romney supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions
Within days of the Goodridge ruling, Romney announced that he supported homosexual civil unions:Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with lawmakers to craft a "civil union"-style law to give some marriage rights to homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman."
Laura Bush
Quote:
"There are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with [gay marriage] because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman," she said, adding, "when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has." Mrs. Bush also mentioned that she believes the legalization of gay marriage is forthcoming
"Conservatism and gay rights are actually natural allies," said S.E. Cupp, conservative columnist and author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity." "Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it's this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is essentially making." Ann Coulter Applauded by Young Conservatives for 'HomoCon' Speech
And Here is someone who seems to have the same argument as you;
Quote:
Both Ms. Coulter and Mr. Beck seem, at least for the moment, to have forgotten John Adams’ sage observation: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Here’s hoping - and praying - that both of these two former stalwarts in the cause will come to their senses in time to return to their posts on the wall instead of giving aid and comfort to the enemy
Anyway. I don't think religion should even be part of the discussion. It makes no sense at all that religion would even be brought up. If we lived in a theocracy, perhaps. But we don't live in a Theocracy. So why religion is brought up is beyond me.
Because many people are under the mistaken assumption we are or at the very least ought to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
