Homophobes scream about how the most votes wins? I don't know what it's like in Australia but anybody who says anything remotely resembling a homophobic remark is immediately ostracized and bombarded by the media, while the gay community pretty much has free reign on what they are allowed to say about their beliefs. A United States general recently made the comment that he believes homosexuality is immoral, he didn't say anything hateful, he simply said that it is immoral...the press had a field day with that...so what's the difference between his belief that it's immoral, and somebody else's belief that it is not? Does he not have a right to his opinion? It seems to me that a group of people (The gay community, GLAD in particular) who are so adament about their rights as Human Beings, and as Americans should really think twice when they open up with the hypocritical attempts to silence someone for THEIR beliefs, while simultaneously promoting an agenda that does nothing but push their own.
I was referring to an earlier comment made in this forum "There are more straight people than gay people, majority win" i beleive was the quote.
Free speach is the "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government." so GLAD are more within their rights to say what they want, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP OR RESTRAINT. same as the media are free to do what they want, without censorship or restraint from the government, i dont know about the country uyou live in, but over here in Oz, the government does not run the media.
Saying homosexuality is immoral, is hateful, he is making a personal judgment on a group of people he has never met, opinions like that can only be drawn from hate, but having said that he was well in his rights to say it without censorship or restraint, just like the press had every right to have a field day with it. Much like that Anne whoever and her "faggot" comment, it wasnt censored by the government, she was just publically ridiculed for her stupidity, which is one of the by-products of free speach. You say something hateful, your gonna cop some heat back on you... i think its a wonderful system.
I just dont understand why people think they have the right to call anything immoral, except your own actions.
Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful, it's an opinion of morality...if his opinion was that homosexuals are evil and should be mocked and riticuled, that would be hateful, but he said nothing of the sort.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit a truth about myself. Some will interpret this as anit-gay. I am aware of that. I hope that people can at least respect the fact that I'm being honest when I know that I'm setting myself up to be attacked. Ok, it's like this. I don't hate homosexuals. My philosophy is live and let live. But I do hate gay parades, gay rallies, gays on television ranting about homophobia, gay rights, the supposed need for gay marriage to be legally recognized and all the fuss made about that issue, and basically any and all in-your-face promotion of the gay lifestyle. What I've always wondered is why gay people can't just be gay and get on with their lives without making a public issue of it. Ok, to be fair about it I'm sure that many do. Maybe most, I don't know. It's the attention whoring and making a mountain out of a molehill types who generate anti-gay sentiments in my mind. Ok, now you can attack me for being a politically incorrect, homophic nazi.
Well said IMO. I hate gay parades, african american parades, hispanic parades, etc... Why not just have a parade? Why do you have to be special in some way? What about you being gay or being a minority makes you want to be seen? I'm a straight white male - if I held a white straight male parade, there'd be thousands of protesters charging me with white supremisist and homophobic charges. Turn it around, how do they think I feel when I see a gay parade stroll by, it makes me feel as if they think they're superior to me somehow.
So again I wonder, why not just have a parade for everyone? You could always say "this parade is sponsered by the American Gay Movement" and that'd be cool with me, I would say "hey these guys are contributing to our communities and holding events, that's down right cool of them". But when they essentially isolate themselves or segregate themselves, it leaves me with the impression that they don't want to be equal to me, and so, I feel no desire to strive for equality.
Representation is everything.
When was the last time, you as a straight white male, was persecuted? when were you, as a white straight male, missunderstood as an abomination and a disgrace to society ? We have the Gay and lesbian parade in australia, because many years ago peole used their democratic right to non-violent protest over percieved injustices in the way their government treated them. The police turned this into one of the most ugliest moments in Australian history. They march to remember the fight for freedom, much like soldiers do, they march to show the government, not you, that they are as important and as vocal as what you would call 'normal peolpe'.
They march because it is their democratic right to protest.
Thats a right you can not take away from anyone.... even being a straight white male.
I dont know where your from, But the Sydney Gay and Lesbian mardi-gras is one of the high points of my year.
Best party in Sydney short of NYE. perhaps you should go to the parade with out your thought of injustice, and actually try to enjoy yourself.
Did I say they don't have the right to parade or protest? Did I say I don't like gays or minorities? Did I say anything that justified you're defensive comments?
I'm explaining to you why people get pissed off at them. This isn't the 50's or 60's anymore. The american mindset has changed. The way to obtain to respect in modern society is to embrace it and prove yourself within it's constraints. Fighing against it and publicly attacking it gets you ignored, ironic I know, but it's the simple truth.
As stated, representation is everything.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Immoral - violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
I feel that calling any member of society immoral is hateful due to the above definition.
Also i said, it was his right to call him immoral without repression from the government, but he most definatly NOT have the right to circumvent the, inevitable, press assult., they have the same right to free speech as ANYONE else.
Remember, even the rebuttle is counted under free speech.
If i went in front of the press and called ANYONE immoral, im sure the press would find someone from that group to interview.... this gives balance.
PS. please excuse me if my rguments sound more disjointed than usual :P
im not feeling the best today.
There is nothing about that definition that means hateful. If a belief that something is wrong is automatically hateful in your eyes, then every single person in this world is hateful in some way, because not a single person believes that everything within human capacity is righteous.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Immoral - violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
I feel that calling any member of society immoral is hateful due to the above definition.
Also i said, it was his right to call him immoral without repression from the government, but he most definatly NOT have the right to circumvent the, inevitable, press assult., they have the same right to free speech as ANYONE else.
Remember, even the rebuttle is counted under free speech.
If i went in front of the press and called ANYONE immoral, im sure the press would find someone from that group to interview.... this gives balance.
PS. please excuse me if my rguments sound more disjointed than usual :P
im not feeling the best today.
There is nothing about that definition that means hateful. If a belief that something is wrong is automatically hateful in your eyes, then every single person in this world is hateful in some way, because not a single person believes that everything within human capacity is righteous.
By questioning my ethics in society, you are saying that i'm not fit to be a part of society as i violate your moral principles.
This general feels that homosexuality can not offer any ethics to society, and is, in his opinion, without ethics.
This is hateful.
Its like me saying, amputees are immoral, aids patients are immoral. There is no connection between amputees and morality or aids a morality, to make one is a stretch at the best.
The belief something is wrong is not hateful in itself, the beleif that someone is immoral because of reasons beyond their control, and/or the belief that any one persons views on morality are accurate to the point of no question is hateful though.
SO you think that it's wrong for anyone to think that a lifestyle choice made by someone else is wrong on the grounds that it's beyond their control? There is no gene that forces men to have sex with one another...THAT is the act of homosexuality that you speak of...being attracted to men is not sinful unless you act on that attraction.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit a truth about myself. Some will interpret this as anit-gay. I am aware of that. I hope that people can at least respect the fact that I'm being honest when I know that I'm setting myself up to be attacked. Ok, it's like this. I don't hate homosexuals. My philosophy is live and let live. But I do hate gay parades, gay rallies, gays on television ranting about homophobia, gay rights, the supposed need for gay marriage to be legally recognized and all the fuss made about that issue, and basically any and all in-your-face promotion of the gay lifestyle. What I've always wondered is why gay people can't just be gay and get on with their lives without making a public issue of it. Ok, to be fair about it I'm sure that many do. Maybe most, I don't know. It's the attention whoring and making a mountain out of a molehill types who generate anti-gay sentiments in my mind. Ok, now you can attack me for being a politically incorrect, homophic nazi.
Well said IMO. I hate gay parades, african american parades, hispanic parades, etc... Why not just have a parade? Why do you have to be special in some way? What about you being gay or being a minority makes you want to be seen? I'm a straight white male - if I held a white straight male parade, there'd be thousands of protesters charging me with white supremisist and homophobic charges. Turn it around, how do they think I feel when I see a gay parade stroll by, it makes me feel as if they think they're superior to me somehow.
So again I wonder, why not just have a parade for everyone? You could always say "this parade is sponsered by the American Gay Movement" and that'd be cool with me, I would say "hey these guys are contributing to our communities and holding events, that's down right cool of them". But when they essentially isolate themselves or segregate themselves, it leaves me with the impression that they don't want to be equal to me, and so, I feel no desire to strive for equality.
Representation is everything.
When was the last time, you as a straight white male, was persecuted? when were you, as a white straight male, missunderstood as an abomination and a disgrace to society ? We have the Gay and lesbian parade in australia, because many years ago peole used their democratic right to non-violent protest over percieved injustices in the way their government treated them. The police turned this into one of the most ugliest moments in Australian history. They march to remember the fight for freedom, much like soldiers do, they march to show the government, not you, that they are as important and as vocal as what you would call 'normal peolpe'.
They march because it is their democratic right to protest.
Thats a right you can not take away from anyone.... even being a straight white male.
I dont know where your from, But the Sydney Gay and Lesbian mardi-gras is one of the high points of my year.
Best party in Sydney short of NYE. perhaps you should go to the parade with out your thought of injustice, and actually try to enjoy yourself.
Did I say they don't have the right to parade or protest? Did I say I don't like gays or minorities? Did I say anything that justified you're defensive comments?
I'm explaining to you why people get pissed off at them. This isn't the 50's or 60's anymore. The american mindset has changed. The way to obtain to respect in modern society is to embrace it and prove yourself within it's constraints. Fighing against it and publicly attacking it gets you ignored, ironic I know, but it's the simple truth.
As stated, representation is everything.
" Why do you have to be special in some way? What about you being gay or being a minority makes you want to be seen? "
Umm, yes you did.......
I was putting my view into perspective, if you're going to quote people, quote the entire statement please.
But since we are quoting people:
"When was the last time, you as a straight white male, was persecuted?"
I applied for a wielder job at Boeing a couple of years ago. I am a certified wielder, and at the time, had 4 years experience. There was only one problem, Boeing is union, and their union requires that a certain percentage of the work force be minority. Guess what, I am not a minority, and they were full on white workers, so I didn't get the job, because I am a straight white male.
After that I thought I'd start my own business. Had a great idea and some decent start-up money saved, all I needed was a small loan to kick it off. Well, as I quickly found out, there's an overwhelming number of people trying to get these loans, both private and government. Long story short, I didn't get the loan. My friend Matt, who is black, applied for a business loan at the same time for his bakery, and he got it. You see, there are government loans available only to minorities, in fact, they make up 60% of the entire SBA small business loan funds. They didn't have any money for me becuase I was a straight white male.
Then I settled for my only real option at the time, Wal-Mart. I worked there for two years and quickly worked my way up to supervisor for the Lawn and Garden department. One of the employees under me had a lazy-eye and while he could see fine, it qualified him as legally blind. I didn't like him, he was late everyday, didn't do half the work he was assigned, and was extremely rude and unhelpful to customers. One day I had a confrontation with him about his work ethics. He told my superior that I was descriminating against him. I was fired and he was promoted to supervisor - firing him would have meant a lawsuit. So I got shafted again, because I am a straight white male.
This is getting long, so to sum up more recent experiences:
I can't even apply for half the scholarship programs out there because I am a straight white male.
I recenlty got shifted to the worst job at my plant because they had a black guy there who comlpain and accused them of being racist. He's working in the AC now spinning foam tape, I'm fabricating fiberglass in the heat with improper protection, because I am a straight white male.
I can't hold a parade in O-town for white people or straight white males, I can't be special. Reverse descrimination is rampant in our society because activists and protestors are too ignorant or selfish to realize they are hurting everyone that's not in their group. Their efforts give them special restrictions that I don't receive, or sometimes, have taken away. I would think that someone wanting equality would realize that the only way to achieve it is to practice it, so that's why I ask myself "Why do you have to be special in some way?"
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
SO you think that it's wrong for anyone to think that a lifestyle choice made by someone else is wrong on the grounds that it's beyond their control? There is no gene that forces men to have sex with one another...THAT is the act of homosexuality that you speak of...being attracted to men is not sinful unless you act on that attraction.
Now your changing the argument.
We were talking about homosexuality being immoral, not the act of homosexuality.
When someone says homosexuality is immoral, it is assumed that they are talking about the act of homosexuality. There are very few people in the world who would say that a homosexual is leading an immoral lifestyle if they are not performing the physical act of homosexuality, which is what is preached against in the Bible. Tempation in and of itself is not a sin, acting on the temptation can be.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think it is wrong for someone, who admittedly doesnt have much knowledge in the fields of science, and who is also not gay, to assume that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice at all.
I have spent the past 5 years of my life completely celebate to make sure my urges are always undercontrol. When i sleep with somoe... it isnt a lifestyle choice, its affection, love, emotions that are well out of my control (well, at least used to be)
But the people that you sleep with...you choose to sleep with them, that is a choice that you make...therefore acting on homosexual urges is a CHOICE, there is nothing in your brain, no hormone, no gene, that forces you to have sex with ANYONE of ANY gender.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
That qualifier was not added, therefor i feel VERY safe to assume that when someone refers to homosexuality, they are in fact talking about homosexuality, while hiding behind the excuse that they only hate the act.
So if I said that I thought that adultery was immoral, would you assume I was being hateful to everybody who has ever been adulterous?
Am I also judging and being hateful to everyone who has been sexually attracted to a married person, and every married person who has been sexually attracted to somebody other than their spouse?
That qualifier was not added, therefor i feel VERY safe to assume that when someone refers to homosexuality, they are in fact talking about homosexuality, while hiding behind the excuse that they only hate the act.
So if I said that I thought that adultery was immoral, would you assume I was being hateful to everybody who has ever been adulterous?
Am I also judging and being hateful to everyone who has been sexually attracted to a married person, and every married person who has been sexually attracted to somebody other than their spouse?
We are going in circles egg.
No i wouldnt think that, but thats because we arnt talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, and comparing the two with any situations is ridiculous.
I think that the principle is just the same. Your argument was that someone saying that they thought homosexuality was immoral was therefore displaying hatred towards homosexuals. How is that different in principle to saying that someone who believes adultery to be immoral is displaying hatred towards adulterers?
Homosexuals might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions. Someone who falls in love with someone else's wife might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions.
btw, what is this "slander" that you're accusing me of?
I am not botered about Homosexuals - I may be straight but few of my friends are gays or Bi's or Lesbians. And yes we do hear more about it now. However it has been around for years it is just in recent years there has been more notice on it, it being in the news etc.
People becoming Gay it is just one of those things as we cannot choose who our heart falls for, we have not control, not really, becuase if u dnt want to all believe it you are denying the truth. There is no definate explaination why people become gay. We can only say our own opinion, unles u ask them and they'll say that they just dont find the opposite sex attractive and they fancy their own sex.
The only thing i do not like is when they start describing gay sex, My Bi friend started talking about lesbian sex and how she has licked out a girl - not nice at all.. *shivers*
That qualifier was not added, therefor i feel VERY safe to assume that when someone refers to homosexuality, they are in fact talking about homosexuality, while hiding behind the excuse that they only hate the act.
So if I said that I thought that adultery was immoral, would you assume I was being hateful to everybody who has ever been adulterous?
Am I also judging and being hateful to everyone who has been sexually attracted to a married person, and every married person who has been sexually attracted to somebody other than their spouse?
We are going in circles egg.
No i wouldnt think that, but thats because we arnt talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, and comparing the two with any situations is ridiculous.
I think that the principle is just the same. Your argument was that someone saying that they thought homosexuality was immoral was therefore displaying hatred towards homosexuals. How is that different in principle to saying that someone who believes adultery to be immoral is displaying hatred towards adulterers?
They might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions. Someone who falls in love with someone else's wife might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions.
btw, what is this "slander" that you're accusing me of?
So you expect someone to control themselves based on your beliefs ?
What right do you have to suggest that ?
On whos ethics are you basing this immorality ?
Definition of immoral -
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Having said that, doesnt society govern the laws of both our contries ?
If that is so, why isnt homosexuality illegal ?
Ill tell you why, because it is as immoral as any other relationship on this planet.
Arnt sins of the mind, same as sins of the body ?
This slander that i speak of, is your repeated attempts to compare true anti-social behaviour to an uncontrolable urge, the very same urge that drives your self and i towards women.
Well the main thrust of your argument seems to be that you don't think homosexuality is immoral and that someone who thinks it is is just wrong. We are arguing at cross purposes. I'm saying nothing about whether someone is right or wrong to believe homosexuality to be immoral or whether such a belief is reasonable or not.
I also say nothing about someone having to change their behaviour because of someone else's beliefs.
It is irrelevant to my point, but as it happens I believe we all have our own morals, and should not force them on eachother. Laws should not be based on morals, and it can be a potentially a problem in democratic governments - and that's why there needs to be some kind of protection from the tyranny of the masses in place in any democratic system.
I am not comparing one kind of behaviour with another, I am comparing the principle of those who may think that behaviour is imorral or not.
It makes no difference what behaviour we are talking about.
The only point I'm making is that somebody can believe that a lifestyle or a particular behaviour of some is immoral (whatever that thing may be) and yet not be passing judgement or hating anybody.
I might believe that sleeping for more than 6 hours a night is immoral, and yet I wouldn't hate the long-sleepers, I wouldn't treat the long-sleepers any differently that anyone else, I would feed them if they were hungry and clothe them if they were naked, I might have some good friends who were long-sleepers, I wouldn't try to get governemnt to pass laws against long-sleepers and I wouldn't force my morals on them. I might try to make sure that I didn't sleep past 6 hours though. I might even publicly say that I thought that sleeping past 6 hours was immoral.
I don't hate gays or lesbians, but I do hate the over-acting ones. Like the real gays, that are acting like womens. It's good if you barely notice the person is gay or lesbian. But otherwise, I might hate them.
Well the main thrust of your argument seems to be that you don't think homosexuality is immoral and that someone who thinks it is is just wrong. We are arguing at cross purposes. I'm saying nothing about whether someone is right or wrong to believe homosexuality to be immoral or whether such a belief is reasonable or not. I also say nothing about someone having to change their behaviour because of someone else's beliefs. It is irrelevant to my point, but as it happens I believe we all have our own morals, and should not force them on eachother. Laws should not be based on morals, and it can be a potentially a problem in democratic governments - and that's why there needs to be some kind of protection from the tyranny of the masses in place in any democratic system. I am not comparing one kind of behaviour with another, I am comparing the principle of those who may think that behaviour is imorral or not. It makes no difference what behaviour we are talking about. The only point I'm making is that somebody can believe that a lifestyle or a particular behaviour of some is immoral (whatever that thing may be) and yet not be passing judgement or hating anybody. I might believe that sleeping for more than 6 hours a night is immoral, and yet I wouldn't hate the long-sleepers, I wouldn't treat the long-sleepers any differently that anyone else, I would feed them if they were hungry and clothe them if they were naked, I might have some good friends who were long-sleepers, I wouldn't try to get governemnt to pass laws against long-sleepers and I wouldn't force my morals on them. I might try to make sure that I didn't sleep past 6 hours though. I might even publicly say that I thought that sleeping past 6 hours was immoral.
"The only point I'm making is that somebody can believe that a lifestyle or a particular behaviour of some is immoral (whatever that thing may be) and yet not be passing judgement or hating anybody."
How can you not be judging someone when you say that your personal beliefs make their lifestyle immoral ?
Even if it is about homosexuality or sleeping, you are still making a judgement on their morals, thats what immoral means.
A better analogy for you would be if i said "all chinese are immoral" as chinese can not help being chinese. What would you think the general reaction of the chinese public would be if, say, Dubyah says this at his next speach in china ? Do you honestly think they would say "oh hes talking about the act of being chinese, not the actual chinese people themselves" or do you think they would be screaming discrimination ?
The Chinese analogy is saying that a person is immoral. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to say that a person is immoral (unless everyone is immoral). However, a lifestyle or a particular behaviour could be called immoral. You can judge a behaviour to be immoral without passing any judgement on the person.
This is my point at using an analogy which you could relate to. If you think about your personal reaction to an act that you consider immoral...(eg. someone acting on the emotions that he can't help feeling for someone else's wife) Do you hate the person who is acting this way? Do you condemn them? Do you think that they ought to be punished in some way?
If the answer to each of those questions is "no", then maybe you might see how someone can consider the act of homosexuality to be immoral, but not hate or pass judgement on homosexuals. Surely any judgement you are making is on the action and not the person?
If we're talking of slander (or maybe libel), then it would be newspapers printing that somebody who has said that he thinks homosexuality is immoral, "hates gays", based purely on that one thing he had said. It's one thing to disagree with someone else's ideas of what is immoral, it's another to put words in their mouth based on your own misconceptions.
Now, if someone says that homosexuals are immoral or that being a homosexual is immoral, that would be a different matter.
Because they feel insecure in the company of one maby. Or because they're different. Or because everyone they know thinks so therefore they think so too. Personally I dont care as long as they respect my opinions aswell.
$OE lies list http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0 " And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
If someone is in love with my wife and is activly trying to steal her away from me, you bet im going to feel some hate.
This is because i have invested vast amounts of love, emotion and time into the relationship and i would personally hate someone who activly seeked to stole my wife, knowing all that.
Okay i screwed up the analogy, i can admit to that, i ment to say
"All of China is Immoral" that way im not speaking about specific people, im talking about a country.
I feel the point remains.
By using your morals to quantisise a persons wealth to society, especially based on such private matters as sexual relations, you are judging them, weather you do it, directly or indirectly, or knowingly or unknowingly.
If you were to say china was immoral, im sure you would find a shit load of chinese who are as equally offend as homosexuals are of your analogy.... surely you can see that.
People have been shot down on these forums for saying the immorality of christianity, quite a few people (i may be incorrect here, im feeling sick so im a bit out of wack) i even think i remember you being insulted by someone saying how immoral they feel christianity is. I saw absolutly not one christian say, "hey fellow christians, dont worry about him, hes just talking about christianity, not christians". I saw a lot of christians scream ignorance and arrogance though, double standard ?
I knew i wasnt going crazy, here is the first example i found, didnt look to hard though, as i said, im feeling sick.
" I don't have any issue with you stating your views that you don't believe there's any god. If you don't want an argument, you should follow your own advice instead writing of some of the fairly offensive and ignorant things you posted earlier in this thread. You said the Bible was just "made up" by various people and included a "lol". You say there's no evidence for god when what you mean is "proof", saying there's no evidence is just asking for someone to point out that there is. You say there's no evidence of Religion, which is just a weird thing to say, because we know religions exist. You suggest that technology has made us happier than religion and cures mean there's no longer a need for people to pray (you found a cure for death then?). Then you say that the only thing religion has ever done is cause wars. Besides all that, your rant wasn't even particularly relevant to the thread in the first place....it was like someone mentioned something to do with religion, and you just went off on one." How can you find talk of the immoralities of the bible offensive while holding those views about the practicing of homosexuality. Isnt the bible the very definition of christian practice, and you found it offensive that someone was questioning it.
"All of China" still doesn't make sense to me. You could however say that you thought that the lifestyle of the Chinese was immoral. That view may be ignorant and offensive, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that you think they deserved to be punished in some way or that you hated them.
Of course if you change the adultery analogy to it being your wife, it changes the perspective. There again if you change the homosexuality argument around to think about how someone would feel about a gay man forcing himself on him, that also changes the perspective. So I would ask you to consider adultery in general and not a particular case that affects you and then answer those questions.
Saying "Chrsitianity is immoral" is a good analogy. The person saying such a thing may or may not hate Christians - the implication isn't immediately there because of that statement. I don't recall from that quotation of mine that I was responding to someone saying Christianity was immoral, but I might well have argued the case against someone who said it that it was. I might even have found such a view offensive. However, if I assumed from that statement that they were judging me or hating me, I would be jumping to a conclusion.
I should point out that you have assumed my views on homosexuality. I have never stated that I consider homosexuality to be immoral. I was merely arguing the case that someone can think something to be immoral and yet not hate or judge the person doing it.
I too, would like to point out that i never accused you of calling homosexuals immoral. Someone else did, and i was accusing them, you jumped in.
I based that on the last paragraph of your previous post which came after quoting me.
Perhaps this is why we are having such a hard time agreeing.
If a chinese changes his lifestyle so it is not chinese, would he be still considered chinese ? I would say he was still Chinese but living a different lifestyle.
Isnt how you live your life how you define yourself ? Probably, yes, along with beliefs, unbringing, job, interests, race, culture, tastes, appearance...
Do you think differently than you act ?, i think thats called being two-faced.
Once again, isnt sins of the mind same as sins of the body ? That's not a quick and easy question to deal with. Temptation isn't a sin. Covetting your neighbour's wife would be considered a sin (of envy). There is a difference although I suspect if we explored the issue, that we'd find some blurred lines along the way. Giving in to temptation and going against your own morals might be displaying weakness, but it isn't necessarily two faced. Is a smoker who believes that cigarettes are harmful (and that it's not good to do harmful things to one's self) being two-faced?
What your questions say to me is that you think it unreasonable for someone to think homosexuality is immoral, because homosexuals can't help their feelings and to expect a homosexual to resist fulfilling his sexual desires would be asking them to never experience meaningful, loving sex or find a partner they were truly happy with. That's a fair enough point of view, and I pretty much agree with you. It doesn't change my point though.
However ridiculous or unfair or ignorant you may think someone else's morals may be, they can hold those morals without hating those that break them, and without forcing those morals onto others by punishing them for not holding to those morals. In fact it is crucial that they are able to do that, because it's those that hold differing morals and hate people who do not live by those morals and want to force their morals onto others, who cause some pretty major problems in society. I would also say it's pretty important for those who do not hold such morals to understand that they are not necessarily being judged or hated by the fact that someone holds different morals to them.
Second paragraph i dont really understand, my point is that the word immoral pertains directly to how SOCIETY percieves somebdy, when you personally think something is immoral when it clearly isnt, if it was it would be illegal as society dictates the rules, that is hatred. So no, by using the word morals, you are forcing your unaccepted view of society onto a pefectly normal, and law abiding, member of society.
Perhaps we're getting stuck on the definition of immoral.
So, are you saying that something can only be called immoral if a majority agree it to be? So that if 60% of a society agreed that picking your nose was immoral, then no matter if you thought that there was nothing wrong in doing so, picking your nose is automatically immoral, by majority rule? So a person is not entitled to their own morality (or if they are then they should call it something else)?
Are you also saying here that if a majority think something is immoral, then it would automatically be made illegal? I would certainly argue against such a tyrannic democracy. I would think it important to keep society's laws and society's morals separate.
With the possible exceptions of drug use and speeding (on an empty road), all those things in that list directly infringe on the rights of others or put others in danger. Therefore I would say that the "morality" of such actions is irrelevant to why they should be illegal, but then maybe I'm weird, because I would go further to say that drug-use should be left up to the "morality" of the individual and not punished by the law.
Adultery is not on that list, yet it's quite possible that the majority of society might think it immoral (at least in certain contexts) yet it is legal in most western societies. Prostitution is legal in Holland and in some (or is it just one?) states in the US, and yet that may also be generally accepted to be immoral. Fortunatley, it seems that sometimes a society can consider something to be immoral without judging those doing it and demanding punishment.
I'm not arguing that laws don't get passed based on the morality of the majority, because they clearly do, but personally I believe there should be a definite distinction between morality and law, because people should be free to have their own morals, and people should not force their morals onto others by use of state law - even if they are in a majority.
My Oxford English Dictionary defines immoral in terms of being opposed to moral, which it defines as "concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition or with the distinction of right or wrong; virtuous in general conduct; (of rights duties etc) founded on moral law."
I can underline some other bits of the definition you found to reflect that "morality" can refer to an individual's principles:
dictionary definition of immoral -
1.
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personaland social ethics.
2.
licentious or lascivious.
dictionary definition of licentious -
unrestrained by law or general morality;lawless; immoral.
This is why i hate what the Christian and other religions have done to our society.
Its a big tolerance thing. A lot of people feel threatened by sexuality. Other people its their beliefs. And some people just make an illusion in their mind that their better because they aren't gay.
Just look at the Christian religion. -alot of the laws and opinions today are made and carried out through conservatives via religion. Just a few examples (Marijuana-Alchohol-Homosexual- Sexism-The whole go to hell if you dont believe what i believe). The impact that has on our society as follows. Marijuana was "bad" because around 1100 (((((((a.c.))))))) one of the herbs that ""Witches"" or doctors used to heal was marijuana. These doctors "were work of the devil". Alchohol is ok because jesus turned water to wine. Woman where put to be the second or after thought to man. And "If you dont believe in my religion you go to hell". Now for some history on Sodom and Gomorrah(sound familiar?).
For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19:24-25). Since then, their names are synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's just wrath (Jude 1:7).
The story of Sodom has given rise to words in several languages, including English: the word "sodomy", meaning acts (stigmatized as "unnatural vice") such as homosexuality and anal sex, and the word "sodomite", meaning one who practices such acts.
Sodom was one of a group of five towns, the Pentapolis (Wisdom 10:6): Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela -- also called Zoar (Genesis 19:22). The Pentapolis region is also collectively referred to as "the Cities of the Plain" (Genesis 13:12) since they were all sited on the plain of the Jordan River, in an area that constituted the southern limit of the lands of the Canaanites (Genesis 10:19). Lot, a nephew of Abram (Abraham) chose to live in Sodom, because of the proximity of good grazing for his flocks (Genesis 13:5-11).
In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its gross immorality. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even ten righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God destroyed the city.
In Genesis 19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee:
4. When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end[of the city].
5. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them." (Judaica Press.)
Lot refused to give the visiting angels to the men of Sodom, instead he offered them his two daughters but the men refused. The men were struck with blindness, allowing Lot and his family, who were then instructed to leave the city, to escape. Then Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with fire and brimstone by God.
A similar event is recorded in the Judges 19:20-22, this time involving the town of Gibeah. This suggests that the occurrences in Sodom were not unique:
20. And the old man said, "Peace be to you, just let all your needs be upon me, but do not lodge in the street."
21. And he brought him into his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys, and they washed their feet, ate and drank.
22. As they were enjoying themselves, and behold, the men of the city, men of wickedness, surrounded the house, (and were) beating at the door. And they spoke to the man, the elderly master of the house, saying, "Bring out the man that came into your house, so that we may be intimate with him. (Judaica Press.)
Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were homosexual, or sexually deviant from what was recorded as God's law of natural order, but rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally morally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Though homosexual acts were an abomination, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other sins as well. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders[citation needed].
A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.(compare Procrustes.)
The Talmud also recounts the incident of a young girl (some sources say it was a daughter of Lot) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered her act of kindness, they smeared her body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was stung to death by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event (and her scream, in particular), the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So Hashem said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see...'" (Genesis 18:20-21.)
Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.
”
— Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195
and Josephus recounts that angels came to Sodom to find good men they were instead greeted by rapists and sodomists[1]:
“
And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population.
”
— Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202
[edit] Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations
This section reads like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house."
One might get the impression that only the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and also that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. But a small number of reformists feel neither of these points is necessarily supported by a close reading of the text.
As was historically the case with the English word men, the Hebrew word anashim used here can also refer to a group comprised of both sexes. (For example, in Genesis 17:23 the word anashim must be paired with the word zechar, meaning "male", to indicate that men and not women were circumcised, though it also must be mentioned that this generally is not the case.) If women were present too, then it is hard to argue that the whole crowd was looking for a homosexual experience. Those present were therefore possibly better described as bisexual.
The traditional interpretation may also rely on another textual interpretation, relating to the crowd's declaration of what they want to do to the visitors. There is no Old Testament text in which the word yadha specifically refers to homosexual coitus, except for this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shachabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shachabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. However the term does refer to a sexual act, therefore the intention was rape, whether homosexual or not(if women were indeed present).
One more textual feature may support this point. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is again the term anashim, which is occasionally used ambiguously. One may ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were? However if the sin was rape, and the rapists were indiscriminate, then the sex of the strangers would not matter.
There are two prevailing views of the sin of Sodom in Christian thought. One is that the destruction of Sodom was due to inhospitality, as illustrated by the gifts of God to Abraham for his gracious action, contrasted with consequences of the behavior of the city's inhabitants. First we see hospitality and the way we should act, then inhospitality in that the people of Sodom seek to mistreat the newcomers. The Biblical text itself seems to suggest that the sin is based in part on inhospitality to some (if not a major) extent (although traditionally, the reason promulgated for the punishment has been sexual immorality):
In a sixteenth-century depiction by Lucas Van Leyden, a drunken Lot embraces his daughter while Sodom burns in the distance.
Ezekiel 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:
Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
This view of the Biblical story reflects that of other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was of singular importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods.[1] Also in these civilizations, men were held in a much higher regard than women, in Greece women being seen as little more than property[citation needed], therefore, to demand not only a guest but a male guest be violated against his will would be seen as more of a crime than to allow women to be used to save the guest[citation needed].
The other prevailing explanation among Christians, informed by certain interpretations of other Biblical texts (see The Bible and homosexuality) and believed to be further suggested by the following, is that the sins of Sodom involved sexual immorality:
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 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.
Interpretations of this passage vary. It may be that "going after strange flesh" is a euphemism for homosexuality, or, it may refer to sex with strangers, sex outside of wedlock, or possibly something akin to bestiality, as the men of Sodom were seeking copulation with angels rather than humans. [2]
According to Islamic tradition, Lut lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim or Abraham. His story is often used as a reference by traditional Islamic scholars to show homosexuality to be against God's law or Haraam. He was commanded by God to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorra to preach against homosexuality. In the Qur'an as in the Bible, Lut's message is ignored, Sodom and Gommorra is destroyed and his wife is left behind to be destroyed.
“
And Lut, when he said to his tribe: "Do you commit an obscenity not perpetrated before you by anyone in all the worlds? You come with lust to men instead of women. You are indeed a depraved tribe." The only answer of his tribe was to say: "Expel them from your city! They are people who keep themselves pure!" So We rescued him and his family-except for his wife. She was one of those who stayed behind. We rained down a rain upon them. See the final fate of the evildoers!
”
— Qur'an, 7:80-84
“
And (remember) Lout (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamin (mankind and jinns)?"
"Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)." And the answer of his people was only that they said: "Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!" Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment). And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists, sinners, etc.).
”
— Qur'an 7:84
“
And verily, there came Our Messengers to Ibrahim (Abraham) with glad tidings. They said: Salam (greetings or peace!) He answered, Salam (greetings or peace!) and he hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf.
But when he saw their hands went not towards it (the meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not, we have been sent against the people of Lout (Lot)." And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed (either, because the Messengers did not eat their food or for being glad for the destruction of the people of Lout (Lot). But We gave her glad tidings of Ishaque (Isaac), and after him, of Ya'qub (Jacob). She said (in astonishment): "Woe unto me! Shall I bear a child while I am an old woman, and here is my husband, an old man? Verily! This is a strange thing!" They said: "Do you wonder at the Decree of Allah? The Mercy of Allah and His Blessings be on you, O the family [of Ibrahim (Abraham)]. Surely, He (Allah) is All-Praiseworthy, All-Glorious." Then when the fear had gone away from (the mind of) Ibrahim (Abraham), and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us (Our Messengers) for the people of Lout (Lot). Verily, Ibrahim (Abraham) was, without doubt, forbearing, used to invoke Allah with humility, and was repentant (to Allah all the time, again and again). "O Ibrahim (Abraham)! Forsake this. Indeed, the Commandment of your Lord has gone forth. Verily, there will come a torment for them which cannot be turned back." And when Our Messengers came to Lout (Lot), he was grieved on their account and felt himself straitened for them (lest the town people should approach them to commit sodomy with them). He said: "This is a distressful day." And his people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes (sodomy, etc.), he said: "O my people! Here are my daughters (i.e. the daughters of my nation), they are purer for you (if you marry them lawfully). So fear Allah and degrade me not as regards my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" They said: "Surely you know that we have neither any desire nor in need of your daughters, and indeed you know well what we want!" He said: "Would that I had strength (men) to overpower you, or that I could betake myself to some powerful support (to resist you)." They (Messengers) said: "O Lout (Lot)! Verily, we are the Messengers from your Lord! They shall not reach you! So travel with your family in a part of the night, and let not any of you look back, but your wife (will remain behind), verily, the punishment which will afflict them, will afflict her. Indeed, morning is their appointed time. Is not the morning near?" So when Our Commandment came, We turned (the towns of Sodom in Palestine) upside down, and rained on them stones of baked clay, piled up; Marked from your Lord, and they are not ever far from the Zalimun (polytheists, evil-doers, etc.).
”
— Qur'an 11:69-83
“
And verily! Your Lord, He is indeed the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful.
The people of Lout (Lot) (those dwelt in the towns of Sodom in Palestine) belied the Messengers. When their brother Lout (Lot) said to them: "Will you not fear Allah and obey Him? "Verily! I am a trustworthy Messenger to you. "So fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. "No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islamic Monotheism), my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "Go you in unto the males of the 'Alamin (mankind), "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!" They said: "If you cease not. O Lout (Lot)! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!" He said: "I am, indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury your (this evil) action (of sodomy). "My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do." So We saved him and his family, all, Except an old woman (his wife) among those who remained behind. Then afterward We destroyed the others. And We rained on them a rain (of torment). And how evil was the rain of those who had been warned. Verily, in this is indeed a sign, yet most of them are not believers. And verily! Your Lord, He is indeed the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful.
”
— Qur'an 26:159-175
The major difference between the story of Lut in the Qur'an and the story of Lot in the Bible is that the Biblical version includes stories of Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters, which is denied in Qur'an. Moreover, the definition of Prophethood is not the same in Islam and Christian believes.
The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, with some believing they never existed, some believing they are now under the Dead Sea, and others claiming that they have been found (under other names) in the region to the southeast of the Dead Sea. Their exact location is unknown, however the Bible indicates they were located near the Dead Sea (Genesis 14:1-3, Genesis 14:8-10, Deuteronomy 34:3). Strabo states that locals living near Moasada (probably referring to Masada) say that "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis".[2] There is a small "mountain", mainly composed of salt, next to the Dead Sea, called in Arabic Jabal (Mount) Usdum, which is similar to the Arabic for Sodom, Sad?m.
Archibald Sayce translated an Akkadian poem describing cities that were destroyed in a rain of fire, written from the view of a person who escaped the destruction, however the names of the cities are not given.[3] This rain of fire may have been a combination of meteorites and earth quakes along the fault line running into the dead sea. This could explain the current salty state of the sea, which prohibits plant growth in what was supposedly a once fertile region.
Some modern biblical scholars argue that a sin was attached to the story of Sodom to justify the destruction of the cities, which may be based on an authentic account of a natural cataclysm. Geologists have confirmed that no volcanic activity occurred within the last 4000 years, but it is possible that the towns were destroyed by an earthquake in the region, especially if the towns lie along a major fault, the Jordan Rift Valley, the northernmost extension of the Great Rift Valley of the Red Sea and East Africa.[4] It is also possible that the sin of the inhabitants appearing in the original text was edited out and lost.
According to Burton MacDonald, the name “Sodom” "is probably related to the Arabic sadama meaning 'fasten,' 'fortify,' 'strengthen'" and Gomorrah is based on the root gh m r which means 'be deep,' 'copious (water)'.[5] Another possibility for "Sodom" is the Arabic meaning "to dry up (spring)".
In 1976 Giovanni Pettinato claimed that a cuneiform tablet that had been found in the newly discovered library at Ebla contained the names of all five of the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela), listed in just the same order that they are named in Genesis, though not all of the names have been wholly verified. However, that si-da-mu [TM.76.G.524] and ì-ma-ar [TM.75.G.1570 and TM.75.G.2233] are almost universally accepted to represent Sodom and Gomorrah.[6] However, Alfonso Archi states that, judging from the surrounding city names in the cuneiform list, si-da-mu lies in northern Syria and not near the Dead Sea, and ì-ma-ar is a variant of ì-mar, known to represent Emar, an ancient city located near Ebla.[7] William Shea points out in 1983 that on the 'Eblaite Geographical Atlas' (TM.75.G.2231), ad-mu-ut and sa-dam are good readings by Pettinato and correspond to Admah and Sodom, and they are contained in a list of cities that traces a route along the shores of, or quite possibly within the Dead Sea, whose position may have since shifted along its fault.[8]
Possible candidates for Sodom or Gomorrah are the sites discovered or visited by Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub in 1973, including Bab edh-Dhra, Numeira, es-Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir. All sites were located near the Dead Sea, with evidence of burning on many of the stones and a sudden stop of inhabitation towards the end of the Early Bronze Age.[9]
In accordance with the general Zionist and Israeli practice of naming places for the cities or villages which existed in the general vicinity in Biblical times, the site of the present Dead Sea Works, extensively extracting the Dead Sea minerals, is called "Sdom" (????) - though there is no reason to believe that the Biblical city, if it actually existed, was in that particular location. Unlike its Biblical namesake, the modern Sodom is not specifically associated with homosexuality.
Parts of the The Scorpion King (2002, in effect a fantasy movie) are set in a city called Gomorrah, apparently meant to be the Biblical city before it was destroyed.
In the stories "Lot"(1953) and "Lot's Daughter"(1954) by Science Fiction writer Ward Moore, the Bibilical story of Lot and his daughters' survival from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is reinterpreted as the story of the survival of a modern American family in the aftermath of nuclear war.
Ok, it's like this. I don't hate homosexuals. My philosophy is live and let live. But I do hate gay parades, gay rallies, gays on television ranting about homophobia, gay rights, the supposed need for gay marriage to be legally recognized and all the fuss made about that issue, and basically any and all in-your-face promotion of the gay lifestyle. What I've always wondered is why gay people can't just be gay and get on with their lives without making a public issue of it. Ok, to be fair about it I'm sure that many do. Maybe most, I don't know. It's the attention whoring and making a mountain out of a molehill types who generate anti-gay sentiments in my mind.
People dont have to aggree with the GLBT lifestyle, but GLBT folks shouldnt have to be afraid of being themselves. The reason theres "gay" parades, pride days and such it to promote education and tolerance of people who are different. I've lost many GLBT friends to hate crime murders in the past 6 years, and its sad to see that people just trying to be themselves and live their lives are brutally attacked because they are "different". The only way to try change the violence against GLBT(or any group, ethnic, race) is to be open about it and try to teach folks that everyones different and thats ok.
As for making a mountain out of a molehill, tell that to the TS girl who had her arms and legs broken and thrown out a 4 story window in Manhattan recently.
Avoiding a problem doesnt make it go awayt.
BTW i'm not bashing the quoted person at all, just pointing out a few things.
Comments
Free speach is the "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government." so GLAD are more within their rights to say what they want, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP OR RESTRAINT. same as the media are free to do what they want, without censorship or restraint from the government, i dont know about the country uyou live in, but over here in Oz, the government does not run the media.
Saying homosexuality is immoral, is hateful, he is making a personal judgment on a group of people he has never met, opinions like that can only be drawn from hate, but having said that he was well in his rights to say it without censorship or restraint, just like the press had every right to have a field day with it. Much like that Anne whoever and her "faggot" comment, it wasnt censored by the government, she was just publically ridiculed for her stupidity, which is one of the by-products of free speach. You say something hateful, your gonna cop some heat back on you... i think its a wonderful system.
I just dont understand why people think they have the right to call anything immoral, except your own actions.
Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful, it's an opinion of morality...if his opinion was that homosexuals are evil and should be mocked and riticuled, that would be hateful, but he said nothing of the sort.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well said IMO. I hate gay parades, african american parades, hispanic parades, etc... Why not just have a parade? Why do you have to be special in some way? What about you being gay or being a minority makes you want to be seen? I'm a straight white male - if I held a white straight male parade, there'd be thousands of protesters charging me with white supremisist and homophobic charges. Turn it around, how do they think I feel when I see a gay parade stroll by, it makes me feel as if they think they're superior to me somehow.
So again I wonder, why not just have a parade for everyone? You could always say "this parade is sponsered by the American Gay Movement" and that'd be cool with me, I would say "hey these guys are contributing to our communities and holding events, that's down right cool of them". But when they essentially isolate themselves or segregate themselves, it leaves me with the impression that they don't want to be equal to me, and so, I feel no desire to strive for equality.
Representation is everything.
When was the last time, you as a straight white male, was persecuted? when were you, as a white straight male, missunderstood as an abomination and a disgrace to society ? We have the Gay and lesbian parade in australia, because many years ago peole used their democratic right to non-violent protest over percieved injustices in the way their government treated them. The police turned this into one of the most ugliest moments in Australian history. They march to remember the fight for freedom, much like soldiers do, they march to show the government, not you, that they are as important and as vocal as what you would call 'normal peolpe'.They march because it is their democratic right to protest.
Thats a right you can not take away from anyone.... even being a straight white male.
I dont know where your from, But the Sydney Gay and Lesbian mardi-gras is one of the high points of my year.
Best party in Sydney short of NYE. perhaps you should go to the parade with out your thought of injustice, and actually try to enjoy yourself.
Did I say they don't have the right to parade or protest? Did I say I don't like gays or minorities? Did I say anything that justified you're defensive comments?
I'm explaining to you why people get pissed off at them. This isn't the 50's or 60's anymore. The american mindset has changed. The way to obtain to respect in modern society is to embrace it and prove yourself within it's constraints. Fighing against it and publicly attacking it gets you ignored, ironic I know, but it's the simple truth.
As stated, representation is everything.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
By questioning my ethics in society, you are saying that i'm not fit to be a part of society as i violate your moral principles.
This general feels that homosexuality can not offer any ethics to society, and is, in his opinion, without ethics.
This is hateful.
Its like me saying, amputees are immoral, aids patients are immoral. There is no connection between amputees and morality or aids a morality, to make one is a stretch at the best.
The belief something is wrong is not hateful in itself, the beleif that someone is immoral because of reasons beyond their control, and/or the belief that any one persons views on morality are accurate to the point of no question is hateful though.
You cant see how saying gays are immoral is "unpleasant; dislikable; distasteful (dictionary.reference.com/browse/hateful)" to homosexuals ?
SO you think that it's wrong for anyone to think that a lifestyle choice made by someone else is wrong on the grounds that it's beyond their control? There is no gene that forces men to have sex with one another...THAT is the act of homosexuality that you speak of...being attracted to men is not sinful unless you act on that attraction.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well said IMO. I hate gay parades, african american parades, hispanic parades, etc... Why not just have a parade? Why do you have to be special in some way? What about you being gay or being a minority makes you want to be seen? I'm a straight white male - if I held a white straight male parade, there'd be thousands of protesters charging me with white supremisist and homophobic charges. Turn it around, how do they think I feel when I see a gay parade stroll by, it makes me feel as if they think they're superior to me somehow.
So again I wonder, why not just have a parade for everyone? You could always say "this parade is sponsered by the American Gay Movement" and that'd be cool with me, I would say "hey these guys are contributing to our communities and holding events, that's down right cool of them". But when they essentially isolate themselves or segregate themselves, it leaves me with the impression that they don't want to be equal to me, and so, I feel no desire to strive for equality.
Representation is everything.
When was the last time, you as a straight white male, was persecuted? when were you, as a white straight male, missunderstood as an abomination and a disgrace to society ? We have the Gay and lesbian parade in australia, because many years ago peole used their democratic right to non-violent protest over percieved injustices in the way their government treated them. The police turned this into one of the most ugliest moments in Australian history. They march to remember the fight for freedom, much like soldiers do, they march to show the government, not you, that they are as important and as vocal as what you would call 'normal peolpe'.They march because it is their democratic right to protest.
Thats a right you can not take away from anyone.... even being a straight white male.
I dont know where your from, But the Sydney Gay and Lesbian mardi-gras is one of the high points of my year.
Best party in Sydney short of NYE. perhaps you should go to the parade with out your thought of injustice, and actually try to enjoy yourself.
Did I say they don't have the right to parade or protest? Did I say I don't like gays or minorities? Did I say anything that justified you're defensive comments?
I'm explaining to you why people get pissed off at them. This isn't the 50's or 60's anymore. The american mindset has changed. The way to obtain to respect in modern society is to embrace it and prove yourself within it's constraints. Fighing against it and publicly attacking it gets you ignored, ironic I know, but it's the simple truth.
As stated, representation is everything.
" Why do you have to be special in some way? What about you being gay or being a minority makes you want to be seen? "
Umm, yes you did.......
I was putting my view into perspective, if you're going to quote people, quote the entire statement please.
But since we are quoting people:
"When was the last time, you as a straight white male, was persecuted?"
I applied for a wielder job at Boeing a couple of years ago. I am a certified wielder, and at the time, had 4 years experience. There was only one problem, Boeing is union, and their union requires that a certain percentage of the work force be minority. Guess what, I am not a minority, and they were full on white workers, so I didn't get the job, because I am a straight white male.
After that I thought I'd start my own business. Had a great idea and some decent start-up money saved, all I needed was a small loan to kick it off. Well, as I quickly found out, there's an overwhelming number of people trying to get these loans, both private and government. Long story short, I didn't get the loan. My friend Matt, who is black, applied for a business loan at the same time for his bakery, and he got it. You see, there are government loans available only to minorities, in fact, they make up 60% of the entire SBA small business loan funds. They didn't have any money for me becuase I was a straight white male.
Then I settled for my only real option at the time, Wal-Mart. I worked there for two years and quickly worked my way up to supervisor for the Lawn and Garden department. One of the employees under me had a lazy-eye and while he could see fine, it qualified him as legally blind. I didn't like him, he was late everyday, didn't do half the work he was assigned, and was extremely rude and unhelpful to customers. One day I had a confrontation with him about his work ethics. He told my superior that I was descriminating against him. I was fired and he was promoted to supervisor - firing him would have meant a lawsuit. So I got shafted again, because I am a straight white male.
This is getting long, so to sum up more recent experiences:
I can't even apply for half the scholarship programs out there because I am a straight white male.
I recenlty got shifted to the worst job at my plant because they had a black guy there who comlpain and accused them of being racist. He's working in the AC now spinning foam tape, I'm fabricating fiberglass in the heat with improper protection, because I am a straight white male.
I can't hold a parade in O-town for white people or straight white males, I can't be special. Reverse descrimination is rampant in our society because activists and protestors are too ignorant or selfish to realize they are hurting everyone that's not in their group. Their efforts give them special restrictions that I don't receive, or sometimes, have taken away. I would think that someone wanting equality would realize that the only way to achieve it is to practice it, so that's why I ask myself "Why do you have to be special in some way?"
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
We were talking about homosexuality being immoral, not the act of homosexuality.
When someone says homosexuality is immoral, it is assumed that they are talking about the act of homosexuality. There are very few people in the world who would say that a homosexual is leading an immoral lifestyle if they are not performing the physical act of homosexuality, which is what is preached against in the Bible. Tempation in and of itself is not a sin, acting on the temptation can be.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
So if I said that I thought that adultery was immoral, would you assume I was being hateful to everybody who has ever been adulterous?
Am I also judging and being hateful to everyone who has been sexually attracted to a married person, and every married person who has been sexually attracted to somebody other than their spouse?
So if I said that I thought that adultery was immoral, would you assume I was being hateful to everybody who has ever been adulterous?
Am I also judging and being hateful to everyone who has been sexually attracted to a married person, and every married person who has been sexually attracted to somebody other than their spouse?
We are going in circles egg.No i wouldnt think that, but thats because we arnt talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, and comparing the two with any situations is ridiculous.
I think that the principle is just the same. Your argument was that someone saying that they thought homosexuality was immoral was therefore displaying hatred towards homosexuals. How is that different in principle to saying that someone who believes adultery to be immoral is displaying hatred towards adulterers?
Homosexuals might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions. Someone who falls in love with someone else's wife might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions.
btw, what is this "slander" that you're accusing me of?
People becoming Gay it is just one of those things as we cannot choose who our heart falls for, we have not control, not really, becuase if u dnt want to all believe it you are denying the truth. There is no definate explaination why people become gay. We can only say our own opinion, unles u ask them and they'll say that they just dont find the opposite sex attractive and they fancy their own sex.
The only thing i do not like is when they start describing gay sex, My Bi friend started talking about lesbian sex and how she has licked out a girl - not nice at all.. *shivers*
So if I said that I thought that adultery was immoral, would you assume I was being hateful to everybody who has ever been adulterous?
Am I also judging and being hateful to everyone who has been sexually attracted to a married person, and every married person who has been sexually attracted to somebody other than their spouse?
We are going in circles egg.No i wouldnt think that, but thats because we arnt talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, and comparing the two with any situations is ridiculous.
I think that the principle is just the same. Your argument was that someone saying that they thought homosexuality was immoral was therefore displaying hatred towards homosexuals. How is that different in principle to saying that someone who believes adultery to be immoral is displaying hatred towards adulterers?
They might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions. Someone who falls in love with someone else's wife might not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their actions.
btw, what is this "slander" that you're accusing me of?
So you expect someone to control themselves based on your beliefs ?
What right do you have to suggest that ?
On whos ethics are you basing this immorality ?
Definition of immoral -
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Having said that, doesnt society govern the laws of both our contries ?
If that is so, why isnt homosexuality illegal ?
Ill tell you why, because it is as immoral as any other relationship on this planet.
Arnt sins of the mind, same as sins of the body ?
This slander that i speak of, is your repeated attempts to compare true anti-social behaviour to an uncontrolable urge, the very same urge that drives your self and i towards women.
Well the main thrust of your argument seems to be that you don't think homosexuality is immoral and that someone who thinks it is is just wrong. We are arguing at cross purposes. I'm saying nothing about whether someone is right or wrong to believe homosexuality to be immoral or whether such a belief is reasonable or not.
I also say nothing about someone having to change their behaviour because of someone else's beliefs.
It is irrelevant to my point, but as it happens I believe we all have our own morals, and should not force them on eachother. Laws should not be based on morals, and it can be a potentially a problem in democratic governments - and that's why there needs to be some kind of protection from the tyranny of the masses in place in any democratic system.
I am not comparing one kind of behaviour with another, I am comparing the principle of those who may think that behaviour is imorral or not.
It makes no difference what behaviour we are talking about.
The only point I'm making is that somebody can believe that a lifestyle or a particular behaviour of some is immoral (whatever that thing may be) and yet not be passing judgement or hating anybody.
I might believe that sleeping for more than 6 hours a night is immoral, and yet I wouldn't hate the long-sleepers, I wouldn't treat the long-sleepers any differently that anyone else, I would feed them if they were hungry and clothe them if they were naked, I might have some good friends who were long-sleepers, I wouldn't try to get governemnt to pass laws against long-sleepers and I wouldn't force my morals on them. I might try to make sure that I didn't sleep past 6 hours though. I might even publicly say that I thought that sleeping past 6 hours was immoral.
"The only point I'm making is that somebody can believe that a lifestyle or a particular behaviour of some is immoral (whatever that thing may be) and yet not be passing judgement or hating anybody."
How can you not be judging someone when you say that your personal beliefs make their lifestyle immoral ?
Even if it is about homosexuality or sleeping, you are still making a judgement on their morals, thats what immoral means.
A better analogy for you would be if i said "all chinese are immoral" as chinese can not help being chinese. What would you think the general reaction of the chinese public would be if, say, Dubyah says this at his next speach in china ? Do you honestly think they would say "oh hes talking about the act of being chinese, not the actual chinese people themselves" or do you think they would be screaming discrimination ?
The Chinese analogy is saying that a person is immoral. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to say that a person is immoral (unless everyone is immoral). However, a lifestyle or a particular behaviour could be called immoral. You can judge a behaviour to be immoral without passing any judgement on the person.
This is my point at using an analogy which you could relate to. If you think about your personal reaction to an act that you consider immoral...(eg. someone acting on the emotions that he can't help feeling for someone else's wife) Do you hate the person who is acting this way? Do you condemn them? Do you think that they ought to be punished in some way?
If the answer to each of those questions is "no", then maybe you might see how someone can consider the act of homosexuality to be immoral, but not hate or pass judgement on homosexuals. Surely any judgement you are making is on the action and not the person?
If we're talking of slander (or maybe libel), then it would be newspapers printing that somebody who has said that he thinks homosexuality is immoral, "hates gays", based purely on that one thing he had said. It's one thing to disagree with someone else's ideas of what is immoral, it's another to put words in their mouth based on your own misconceptions.
Now, if someone says that homosexuals are immoral or that being a homosexual is immoral, that would be a different matter.
$OE lies list
http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0
"
And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
"All of China" still doesn't make sense to me. You could however say that you thought that the lifestyle of the Chinese was immoral. That view may be ignorant and offensive, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that you think they deserved to be punished in some way or that you hated them.
Of course if you change the adultery analogy to it being your wife, it changes the perspective. There again if you change the homosexuality argument around to think about how someone would feel about a gay man forcing himself on him, that also changes the perspective. So I would ask you to consider adultery in general and not a particular case that affects you and then answer those questions.
Saying "Chrsitianity is immoral" is a good analogy. The person saying such a thing may or may not hate Christians - the implication isn't immediately there because of that statement. I don't recall from that quotation of mine that I was responding to someone saying Christianity was immoral, but I might well have argued the case against someone who said it that it was. I might even have found such a view offensive. However, if I assumed from that statement that they were judging me or hating me, I would be jumping to a conclusion.
I should point out that you have assumed my views on homosexuality. I have never stated that I consider homosexuality to be immoral. I was merely arguing the case that someone can think something to be immoral and yet not hate or judge the person doing it.
What your questions say to me is that you think it unreasonable for someone to think homosexuality is immoral, because homosexuals can't help their feelings and to expect a homosexual to resist fulfilling his sexual desires would be asking them to never experience meaningful, loving sex or find a partner they were truly happy with. That's a fair enough point of view, and I pretty much agree with you. It doesn't change my point though.
However ridiculous or unfair or ignorant you may think someone else's morals may be, they can hold those morals without hating those that break them, and without forcing those morals onto others by punishing them for not holding to those morals. In fact it is crucial that they are able to do that, because it's those that hold differing morals and hate people who do not live by those morals and want to force their morals onto others, who cause some pretty major problems in society. I would also say it's pretty important for those who do not hold such morals to understand that they are not necessarily being judged or hated by the fact that someone holds different morals to them.
Perhaps we're getting stuck on the definition of immoral.
So, are you saying that something can only be called immoral if a majority agree it to be? So that if 60% of a society agreed that picking your nose was immoral, then no matter if you thought that there was nothing wrong in doing so, picking your nose is automatically immoral, by majority rule? So a person is not entitled to their own morality (or if they are then they should call it something else)?
Are you also saying here that if a majority think something is immoral, then it would automatically be made illegal? I would certainly argue against such a tyrannic democracy. I would think it important to keep society's laws and society's morals separate.
With the possible exceptions of drug use and speeding (on an empty road), all those things in that list directly infringe on the rights of others or put others in danger. Therefore I would say that the "morality" of such actions is irrelevant to why they should be illegal, but then maybe I'm weird, because I would go further to say that drug-use should be left up to the "morality" of the individual and not punished by the law.
Adultery is not on that list, yet it's quite possible that the majority of society might think it immoral (at least in certain contexts) yet it is legal in most western societies. Prostitution is legal in Holland and in some (or is it just one?) states in the US, and yet that may also be generally accepted to be immoral. Fortunatley, it seems that sometimes a society can consider something to be immoral without judging those doing it and demanding punishment.
I'm not arguing that laws don't get passed based on the morality of the majority, because they clearly do, but personally I believe there should be a definite distinction between morality and law, because people should be free to have their own morals, and people should not force their morals onto others by use of state law - even if they are in a majority.
My Oxford English Dictionary defines immoral in terms of being opposed to moral, which it defines as "concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition or with the distinction of right or wrong; virtuous in general conduct; (of rights duties etc) founded on moral law."
I can underline some other bits of the definition you found to reflect that "morality" can refer to an individual's principles:
dictionary definition of immoral -
dictionary definition of licentious -
unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
Its a big tolerance thing. A lot of people feel threatened by sexuality. Other people its their beliefs. And some people just make an illusion in their mind that their better because they aren't gay.
Just look at the Christian religion. -alot of the laws and opinions today are made and carried out through conservatives via religion. Just a few examples (Marijuana-Alchohol-Homosexual- Sexism-The whole go to hell if you dont believe what i believe). The impact that has on our society as follows. Marijuana was "bad" because around 1100 (((((((a.c.))))))) one of the herbs that ""Witches"" or doctors used to heal was marijuana. These doctors "were work of the devil". Alchohol is ok because jesus turned water to wine. Woman where put to be the second or after thought to man. And "If you dont believe in my religion you go to hell". Now for some history on Sodom and Gomorrah(sound familiar?).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sodom and Gomorrah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, John Martin, 1832.
According to the Book of Genesis, Sodom (Hebrew: ??????, Standard S?dom Tiberian S??ôm, Greek Σ?δομα) and Gomorrah (Hebrew: ????????, Standard ?Amora Tiberian ??môr?h, ??môr?h, Greek Γ?μορρα) were two cities destroyed by God for their sins.
For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19:24-25). Since then, their names are synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's just wrath (Jude 1:7).
The story of Sodom has given rise to words in several languages, including English: the word "sodomy", meaning acts (stigmatized as "unnatural vice") such as homosexuality and anal sex, and the word "sodomite", meaning one who practices such acts.
Contents
[hide]//<![CDATA[
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
//]]>
[edit] The Biblical text
Sodom was one of a group of five towns, the Pentapolis (Wisdom 10:6): Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela -- also called Zoar (Genesis 19:22). The Pentapolis region is also collectively referred to as "the Cities of the Plain" (Genesis 13:12) since they were all sited on the plain of the Jordan River, in an area that constituted the southern limit of the lands of the Canaanites (Genesis 10:19). Lot, a nephew of Abram (Abraham) chose to live in Sodom, because of the proximity of good grazing for his flocks (Genesis 13:5-11).
In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its gross immorality. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even ten righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God destroyed the city.
In Genesis 19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee:
Lot refused to give the visiting angels to the men of Sodom, instead he offered them his two daughters but the men refused. The men were struck with blindness, allowing Lot and his family, who were then instructed to leave the city, to escape. Then Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with fire and brimstone by God.
A similar event is recorded in the Judges 19:20-22, this time involving the town of Gibeah. This suggests that the occurrences in Sodom were not unique:
[edit] Jewish views
Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were homosexual, or sexually deviant from what was recorded as God's law of natural order, but rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally morally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Though homosexual acts were an abomination, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other sins as well. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders[citation needed].
A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.(compare Procrustes.)
The Talmud also recounts the incident of a young girl (some sources say it was a daughter of Lot) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered her act of kindness, they smeared her body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was stung to death by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event (and her scream, in particular), the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So Hashem said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see...'" (Genesis 18:20-21.)
[edit] The view of Josephus
Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote:
and Josephus recounts that angels came to Sodom to find good men they were instead greeted by rapists and sodomists[1]:
[edit] Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations
Please help improve this article by rewriting this section in an encyclopedic style. (help, talk)
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house."
One might get the impression that only the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and also that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. But a small number of reformists feel neither of these points is necessarily supported by a close reading of the text.
As was historically the case with the English word men, the Hebrew word anashim used here can also refer to a group comprised of both sexes. (For example, in Genesis 17:23 the word anashim must be paired with the word zechar, meaning "male", to indicate that men and not women were circumcised, though it also must be mentioned that this generally is not the case.) If women were present too, then it is hard to argue that the whole crowd was looking for a homosexual experience. Those present were therefore possibly better described as bisexual.
The traditional interpretation may also rely on another textual interpretation, relating to the crowd's declaration of what they want to do to the visitors. There is no Old Testament text in which the word yadha specifically refers to homosexual coitus, except for this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shachabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shachabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. However the term does refer to a sexual act, therefore the intention was rape, whether homosexual or not(if women were indeed present).
One more textual feature may support this point. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is again the term anashim, which is occasionally used ambiguously. One may ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were? However if the sin was rape, and the rapists were indiscriminate, then the sex of the strangers would not matter.
[edit] Christian views
There are two prevailing views of the sin of Sodom in Christian thought. One is that the destruction of Sodom was due to inhospitality, as illustrated by the gifts of God to Abraham for his gracious action, contrasted with consequences of the behavior of the city's inhabitants. First we see hospitality and the way we should act, then inhospitality in that the people of Sodom seek to mistreat the newcomers. The Biblical text itself seems to suggest that the sin is based in part on inhospitality to some (if not a major) extent (although traditionally, the reason promulgated for the punishment has been sexual immorality):
In a sixteenth-century depiction by Lucas Van Leyden, a drunken Lot embraces his daughter while Sodom burns in the distance.
This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:
This view of the Biblical story reflects that of other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was of singular importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods.[1] Also in these civilizations, men were held in a much higher regard than women, in Greece women being seen as little more than property[citation needed], therefore, to demand not only a guest but a male guest be violated against his will would be seen as more of a crime than to allow women to be used to save the guest[citation needed].
The other prevailing explanation among Christians, informed by certain interpretations of other Biblical texts (see The Bible and homosexuality) and believed to be further suggested by the following, is that the sins of Sodom involved sexual immorality:
Interpretations of this passage vary. It may be that "going after strange flesh" is a euphemism for homosexuality, or, it may refer to sex with strangers, sex outside of wedlock, or possibly something akin to bestiality, as the men of Sodom were seeking copulation with angels rather than humans. [2]
[edit] Islamic view
Main article: Lut
Lut (Arabic: ??? ) was a prophet mentioned in the Qur'an and known as Lot in the Bible.
According to Islamic tradition, Lut lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim or Abraham. His story is often used as a reference by traditional Islamic scholars to show homosexuality to be against God's law or Haraam. He was commanded by God to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorra to preach against homosexuality. In the Qur'an as in the Bible, Lut's message is ignored, Sodom and Gommorra is destroyed and his wife is left behind to be destroyed.
"Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)." And the answer of his people was only that they said: "Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!" Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment). And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists, sinners, etc.).
But when he saw their hands went not towards it (the meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not, we have been sent against the people of Lout (Lot)." And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed (either, because the Messengers did not eat their food or for being glad for the destruction of the people of Lout (Lot). But We gave her glad tidings of Ishaque (Isaac), and after him, of Ya'qub (Jacob). She said (in astonishment): "Woe unto me! Shall I bear a child while I am an old woman, and here is my husband, an old man? Verily! This is a strange thing!" They said: "Do you wonder at the Decree of Allah? The Mercy of Allah and His Blessings be on you, O the family [of Ibrahim (Abraham)]. Surely, He (Allah) is All-Praiseworthy, All-Glorious." Then when the fear had gone away from (the mind of) Ibrahim (Abraham), and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us (Our Messengers) for the people of Lout (Lot). Verily, Ibrahim (Abraham) was, without doubt, forbearing, used to invoke Allah with humility, and was repentant (to Allah all the time, again and again). "O Ibrahim (Abraham)! Forsake this. Indeed, the Commandment of your Lord has gone forth. Verily, there will come a torment for them which cannot be turned back." And when Our Messengers came to Lout (Lot), he was grieved on their account and felt himself straitened for them (lest the town people should approach them to commit sodomy with them). He said: "This is a distressful day." And his people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes (sodomy, etc.), he said: "O my people! Here are my daughters (i.e. the daughters of my nation), they are purer for you (if you marry them lawfully). So fear Allah and degrade me not as regards my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" They said: "Surely you know that we have neither any desire nor in need of your daughters, and indeed you know well what we want!" He said: "Would that I had strength (men) to overpower you, or that I could betake myself to some powerful support (to resist you)." They (Messengers) said: "O Lout (Lot)! Verily, we are the Messengers from your Lord! They shall not reach you! So travel with your family in a part of the night, and let not any of you look back, but your wife (will remain behind), verily, the punishment which will afflict them, will afflict her. Indeed, morning is their appointed time. Is not the morning near?" So when Our Commandment came, We turned (the towns of Sodom in Palestine) upside down, and rained on them stones of baked clay, piled up; Marked from your Lord, and they are not ever far from the Zalimun (polytheists, evil-doers, etc.).
The people of Lout (Lot) (those dwelt in the towns of Sodom in Palestine) belied the Messengers. When their brother Lout (Lot) said to them: "Will you not fear Allah and obey Him? "Verily! I am a trustworthy Messenger to you. "So fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. "No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islamic Monotheism), my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "Go you in unto the males of the 'Alamin (mankind), "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!" They said: "If you cease not. O Lout (Lot)! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!" He said: "I am, indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury your (this evil) action (of sodomy). "My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do." So We saved him and his family, all, Except an old woman (his wife) among those who remained behind. Then afterward We destroyed the others. And We rained on them a rain (of torment). And how evil was the rain of those who had been warned. Verily, in this is indeed a sign, yet most of them are not believers. And verily! Your Lord, He is indeed the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful.
The major difference between the story of Lut in the Qur'an and the story of Lot in the Bible is that the Biblical version includes stories of Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters, which is denied in Qur'an. Moreover, the definition of Prophethood is not the same in Islam and Christian believes.
[edit] Historicity
The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, with some believing they never existed, some believing they are now under the Dead Sea, and others claiming that they have been found (under other names) in the region to the southeast of the Dead Sea. Their exact location is unknown, however the Bible indicates they were located near the Dead Sea (Genesis 14:1-3, Genesis 14:8-10, Deuteronomy 34:3). Strabo states that locals living near Moasada (probably referring to Masada) say that "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis".[2] There is a small "mountain", mainly composed of salt, next to the Dead Sea, called in Arabic Jabal (Mount) Usdum, which is similar to the Arabic for Sodom, Sad?m.
Archibald Sayce translated an Akkadian poem describing cities that were destroyed in a rain of fire, written from the view of a person who escaped the destruction, however the names of the cities are not given.[3] This rain of fire may have been a combination of meteorites and earth quakes along the fault line running into the dead sea. This could explain the current salty state of the sea, which prohibits plant growth in what was supposedly a once fertile region.
Some modern biblical scholars argue that a sin was attached to the story of Sodom to justify the destruction of the cities, which may be based on an authentic account of a natural cataclysm. Geologists have confirmed that no volcanic activity occurred within the last 4000 years, but it is possible that the towns were destroyed by an earthquake in the region, especially if the towns lie along a major fault, the Jordan Rift Valley, the northernmost extension of the Great Rift Valley of the Red Sea and East Africa.[4] It is also possible that the sin of the inhabitants appearing in the original text was edited out and lost.
According to Burton MacDonald, the name “Sodom” "is probably related to the Arabic sadama meaning 'fasten,' 'fortify,' 'strengthen'" and Gomorrah is based on the root gh m r which means 'be deep,' 'copious (water)'.[5] Another possibility for "Sodom" is the Arabic meaning "to dry up (spring)".
In 1976 Giovanni Pettinato claimed that a cuneiform tablet that had been found in the newly discovered library at Ebla contained the names of all five of the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela), listed in just the same order that they are named in Genesis, though not all of the names have been wholly verified. However, that si-da-mu [TM.76.G.524] and ì-ma-ar [TM.75.G.1570 and TM.75.G.2233] are almost universally accepted to represent Sodom and Gomorrah.[6] However, Alfonso Archi states that, judging from the surrounding city names in the cuneiform list, si-da-mu lies in northern Syria and not near the Dead Sea, and ì-ma-ar is a variant of ì-mar, known to represent Emar, an ancient city located near Ebla.[7] William Shea points out in 1983 that on the 'Eblaite Geographical Atlas' (TM.75.G.2231), ad-mu-ut and sa-dam are good readings by Pettinato and correspond to Admah and Sodom, and they are contained in a list of cities that traces a route along the shores of, or quite possibly within the Dead Sea, whose position may have since shifted along its fault.[8]
Possible candidates for Sodom or Gomorrah are the sites discovered or visited by Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub in 1973, including Bab edh-Dhra, Numeira, es-Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir. All sites were located near the Dead Sea, with evidence of burning on many of the stones and a sudden stop of inhabitation towards the end of the Early Bronze Age.[9]
[edit] The Modern Israeli Sodom
In accordance with the general Zionist and Israeli practice of naming places for the cities or villages which existed in the general vicinity in Biblical times, the site of the present Dead Sea Works, extensively extracting the Dead Sea minerals, is called "Sdom" (????) - though there is no reason to believe that the Biblical city, if it actually existed, was in that particular location. Unlike its Biblical namesake, the modern Sodom is not specifically associated with homosexuality.
[edit] Films and Literature
Some films have attempted to portray the Biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, although many of them take liberties with the historical text.
[edit] Metaphorical References
Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for sinfulness and sexual deviation.
You should listen to Professor Brothers he knows all about that:
link
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
~J. Krishnamurti