Were the Sodomites of the bible really homosexual? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
By ninurta
#13218336
DanDaMan wrote:[]Who the fuck cares if they say they were born that way or not? If it is an act not between two consenting adults, then it is and shall always remain condemned. But the fear mongering talking-heads and moral entrepreneurs always seem to forget that point, don’t they? How convenient.[]
On bonus for teaching sex ed in school is so that children can responsibly have sex at younger ages. The law will come down to meet this demand for more access to educated children.
Face it.... if two 14 year old kids can have sex legally, the only thing stopping an adult is ageism.

Umm....nothing stopped them at age 14 even with taboos, ageism and other ignorances, that is why we have sex ed. Talk about the lack of knowledge.

That's why homosexuals are for sex ed and tearing down the taboo of sodomy between males... the long for the early days of Greece.

O yeah, homosexuals and straight people don't have the same reasons for being for sex ed, you are so right, they must have an agenda that is disturbing and nothing like our normphilia :eek: :knife: :eh:

Think about it... if boys are taught sodomy is not unnatural, adult males will have greater access to younger and younger males.

It's so unnatural :roll: :eh:

Yeah, only nearly every mammal has homosexual tendacies. Not natural at all. Even some fish and amphibians change gender all together, not natural at all :knife:

Actually, the reason homosexuals and straight people alike are for sex ed is because we want them to practice safe sex instead of living their life with an STD. Also to educate them so they might wait to have sex until they are mentally, emotionally, physically and in every other way ready. And at younger ages to tell them not to let people touch down there.

That is our and gay peoples agenda indeed, to educate and protect the masses from making stupid choices by educating them.

It won't happen overnight of course... it's a slow methodical pace.

It seems that you are only scaring yourself with the fearmongering, so you might just want to tell it to your wall because no one else is buying it.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13218376
DDM wrote:sodomy is not unnatural

Sodomy, in the accepted sense of the word, is abnormal, but only just if you believe the CDC, 40% of White heterosexual US males (All 34%*) sodomise their partners anally and 35% of White US women (All 30%*) enjoy being sodomised by them; it is not unnatural.

Using the biblical definition, oral or anal, the number of practicing White heterosexual sodomites in America rises to 80+% (All m; 80.7% : f; 78.9%*). :lol:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/522867

* The numbers change by 'race', but, take your pick, whichever race is chosen, that is still a lot of sodomites
Last edited by ingliz on 30 Oct 2009 20:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nets
#13218513
^ The Bible bans homosexual sex, but heterosexual anal and oral sex are not mentioned anywhere, Ingliz.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13218516
It can be argued the definition of sodomy was broadened by the Catholic church, the Council of Paris, in the 9th century even though this didn't have any real consequences until the early 12th century. Benedict expanded the meaning of sodomy to all sexual acts not related to procreation that were therefore deemed 'counter nature' (so for instance, solitary masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex, and any “sex between the legs and from behind” was classed as sodomy) . In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas expanded on that definition still further to encompass any position where the woman was not on the bottom in the "missionary position".
User avatar
By Nets
#13218600
Well, that wouldn't be a biblical definition then.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13218608
It would be if you were Catholic, the biblical references are Genesis 6, Judges 19 and 20. It is a stretch but, originally, the motivation seems to have been to be "holier than thou", the 'thou' being Islam. Islam was the threat then, as many think it is now, and they hoped God would appreciate their piety and give them a helping hand against the Mussulman.

...the definition of sodomy was broadened by the Catholic church, the Council of Paris, in the 9th century

After further research:

Yes and no, the Council of Paris had ordered that homosexual acts deserved the death penalty, citing the biblical references given, but this was not acted upon by the Emperor.

Twenty or thirty years later, Benedict the Deacon interpolated his views, sodomy is any sexual act counter nature (heterosexual and homosexual), into a true account of the deliberations of the Council and then tacked on a forged imperial edict, making death the penalty for such unnatural vice, effectively foisting the edict and the new definition on the new Emperor.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13220042
The above is the 'cartoon' version. The Emperor still took no notice of the clerics, except when it suited him, and, whatever the motivation of the Council of Paris, sexuality became bound up with the internal Church politics of the time, celibacy of the priesthood, the role of the laity, etc etc, and the power struggle between the Frankish monarchy and the Pope/Anti-popes. You could write a book about it, and somebody probably has.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#13220884
No.

This is one huge misunderstanding in my view. The people who hound Lot into the house he is visiting asking to "know" him are Gate guards! He sneaked in the city somehow. The two cities had been at war for a while and only recently started a ceasefire, etc.

One of the reasons God gave for destroying the two cities was for being unfriendly to strangers, etc. He said nothing about unnatural sex, and so on.
User avatar
By Brio
#13220899
redcarpet wrote:The two cities had been at war for a while and only recently started a ceasefire, etc.


Where in the Bible does it mention this?
User avatar
By Ter
#13220903
redcarpet wrote:One of the reasons God gave for destroying the two cities was for being unfriendly to strangers, etc. He said nothing about unnatural sex, and so on.


You know Redcarpet, I don't give a hoot where people like to stick their penises or whatever else they want to do to get sexual satisfaction. Really.
But when I see you trying to fit the biblical text to your personal mores, that makes me chuckle.
If I were you, I'd become an atheist, even an anticlerical one. They don't want you, they think what you do is wrong. So be it.

Ter
User avatar
By NoRapture
#13221023
Hey, whatever rings your bell, you know? It's your mouth, you can haul coal in it for all I care.
By ninurta
#13226542
Brio wrote:[]The two cities had been at war for a while and only recently started a ceasefire, etc.[]

Where in the Bible does it mention this?

The war in the Valley of Siddim, you know, the one that preceded the burning?
Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]

Is it true Sima Qian's Records Of The Grand Histo[…]