Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[Maren]

This statement is inaccurate. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of a great many sins *including* homosexuality.

from Genesis 19

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Actually, at least per Ezekiel, homosexuality had little to do with it.

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Strange how the same people who claim the Bible is inerrant are typically the same ones who try to claim that Ezekiel is wrong here about the sin of Sodom that caused its destruction.

 

[Archer93]

This statement is inaccurate. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of a great many sins *including* homosexuality.

from Genesis 19

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Since that event took place after the decision to destroy the cities was made, it clearly could have had no effect on the decision.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Since that event took place after the decision to destroy the cities was made, it clearly could have had no effect on the decision.

While they didn't act on it till then, being filled with a bunch of men willing to rape newcomers probably had something to do with it.

 

[Archer93]

A noble agenda.

But I'll be darned if I know how Christianity and gays will ever be reconciled. Our Lord Jesus Christ hung on that cross for everybody, all people. He bled for the gay man and the straight man alike, for the transgender and the lesbian.

Quite a profound realization, huh?

It seems you've answered your own question. If Jesus hung on the cross for everybody, then gays are clearly not excluded.

Since Jesus didn't say word one about homosexuality in any form, it seems reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a problem.
I do wonder, therefore, why some Christians spend so much time and energy on worrying about something that Jesus wasn't bothered about.
Not all Christians, thankfully, just some of them.

 

[Archer93]

While they didn't act on it till then, being filled with a bunch of men willing to rape newcomers probably had something to do with it.

A good point.
Still, 'willingness to rape newcomers' has more to do with being uncharitable and inhospitable than it does with homosexuality. It's based more on 'we don't take kindly to strangers in these parts' than on 'Woah, check out the hot dudes!'

And it's rather irritating having that event held up as the main reason for the destruction, rather than an example of the cities' behaviour which lead to the decision in the first place.

Apparently, S&G were not nice places. But there was more going on than same-sex sexual activity, according the the OT itself, and said activity was not mentioned in Ezekiel.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

For the nth time... the attempted RAPE at Sodom strikes me as more of a concern than the attempted homosexuality...

Never mind the fact that God had apparently decided to destroy the city BEFORE the angel rape event occured...

Or that, like the bulk of Genesis, the Sodom/Gomorrah story is far more likely to be a mix of metaphor/pre-scientific explanation of the mythic landscape than actual literal history.

 

[AlAyeti]

For the nth time... the attempted RAPE at Sodom strikes me as more of a concern than the attempted homosexuality...

Never mind the fact that God had apparently decided to destroy the city BEFORE the angel rape event occured...

Ahhh, the point of it all. Why were the cities so corrupt that God needed to visit them directly? Of course stopping as far as the outside of them. People were crying out to the God of the Israelites who were not Hebrews. What could have been the condition of those cities (and others around them)?

We conservative Christians see things in thme that we see in our society now and civilizations throughout time. A growing permissiveness of a sexual perversion and violence nature. The two seem quite connected. Even if taken as myth or metaphor, why has the homosexual aspect been the main theme for over two-thousand years?

Or that, like the bulk of Genesis, the Sodom/Gomorrah story is far more likely to be a mix of metaphor/pre-scientific explanation of the mythic landscape than actual literal history.

But that only shows how connected the metaphor is to sexual depravity. Why would The Church for so many centuries see homosexuality in such a negative light IF homosexuals are such normal and wonderful people? How much money was rejected by not being liberally tolerant and multi-inclusive??? Especially since so many people connected IN The Church seemed to be quite licentious.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ahhh, the point of it all. Why were the cities so corrupt that God needed to visit them directly? Of course stopping as far as the outside of them. People were crying out to the God of the Israelites who were not Hebrews. What could have been the condition of those cities (and others around them)?

I have no idea what this has to do with homosexuality/

We conservative Christians see things in thme that we see in our society now and civilizations throughout time. A growing permissiveness of a sexual perversion and violence nature. The two seem quite connected. Even if taken as myth or metaphor, why has the homosexual aspect been the main theme for over two-thousand years?

Um... has it?

But that only shows how connected the metaphor is to sexual depravity. Why would The Church for so many centuries see homosexuality in such a negative light IF homosexuals are such normal and wonderful people? How much money was rejected by not being liberally tolerant and multi-inclusive??? Especially since so many people connected IN The Church seemed to be quite licentious.

We've been over this before.

First of all, its always handy to have a clearly identifiable scapegoat that the bulk of people can vilify without fear of being identified with. Homosexuality is virtually tailor made for this, Ted Haggard notwithstanding.

Second, your idea that the church has always universally condemned homosexuality in the same way as you do now is a myth. As with all fashions, condemnation/acceptance of homosexuality in both church and wider society waxes and wanes.

Third, the mere fact that something has traditionally been condemned is not sufficient reason to continue the condemnation.

"we've always hated jews", is not generally considered sufficient justification for antisemitism today.

"we've never let women vote or earn their own money before", is hardly going to stand up in court as valid anymore.

I could continue with examples, but I'm sure you will agree that these examples make it clear that just because something has always been a particular way, does not make it just or based in any form of reality.

Finally, saying "how much money was rejected by not being liberally tolerant..." rather distorts how Christianity worked for the larger part of its history... in most of Europe, large chunks of Africa and although a late starter, but enthusiastic uptaker, North and South America... it wasn't as though people had much of a choice. You would generally have your religion proclaimed upon you by your local rulers, and anyone deemed unobservant could be compelled to worship by force. Given the choice between being openly homosexual and death, and closeted homosexual and life, its not hard to understand what most people would choose. So with that sort of power, the church didn't have to make decisions based on the pragmatism of filling the pews... if you didn't come to church, and didn't tithe your ten percent, the local representtives of the various orders militant, or the secular arm of enforcement could come around and take it out of your hide, quite literally.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Apparently, S&G were not nice places. But there was more going on than same-sex sexual activity, according the the OT itself

Agreed.

Was the depravity of S&G absolute? Did God destroy them for the same reason He flooded the whole earth?

 

[Archer93]

Agreed.

Was the depravity of S&G absolute? Did God destroy them for the same reason He flooded the whole earth?

Absolutely no idea.
Not a Christian, don't think that the S&G story is literal history.
Also have never made any sort of claim to have the inside scoop on any deity's thought processes. Or concepts of logic.

 

[Polycarp1]

Ahhh, the point of it all. Why were the cities so corrupt that God needed to visit them directly? Of course stopping as far as the outside of them. People were crying out to the God of the Israelites who were not Hebrews. What could have been the condition of those cities (and others around them)?

We conservative Christians see things in thme that we see in our society now and civilizations throughout time. A growing permissiveness of a sexual perversion and violence nature. The two seem quite connected. Even if taken as myth or metaphor, why has the homosexual aspect been the main theme for over two-thousand years?



But that only shows how connected the metaphor is to sexual depravity. Why would The Church for so many centuries see homosexuality in such a negative light IF homosexuals are such normal and wonderful people? How much money was rejected by not being liberally tolerant and multi-inclusive??? Especially since so many people connected IN The Church seemed to be quite licentious.

Well, as usual the "conservative Bible-believing Christians" are only believing those pieces of the Bible that support their prejudgments about what God wants and does not want. But the idea that selfishness and luxurious ease are sins against His call to be merciful to others is inimical, because they are tempted to these sins, while any commands against homosexual practice must be run to the top of the flagpole, because it provides a scapegoat for God to be angry with.

And I have juist one thing to say to anyone who equates the actions of the men of Sodom with modern homosexual behavior -- stay completely away from my wife, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter! Because you have made it completely clear that you see no difference between consenting sex within a marital vow and gang rape. In fact, stay away from all women whatsoever -- you cannot be trusted around them.

That may sound extreme -- it is not. You are being judged according to the principles Christ laid down for proper judgment -- and if as a heterosexual person you cannot distinguish between consensual sex in a marital bond and forcible gang rape, you should be locked away for the protection of women and little girls.

And as usual, I am thoroughly disgusted by the idea that "good Christians" equate consensual sex between adults and child molestation, to the point that they insist on hijacking every thread on the subject of homosexuality to bring up that equivalence. God will judge them as they judge -- and I have enough mercy in myself, barely, to hope He does not equate their sex lives within marriage with men raping little girls, as they do in judging their fellow men. But that's how He said He would judge.

 

[Polycarp1]

Agreed.

Was the depravity of S&G absolute? Did God destroy them for the same reason He flooded the whole earth?

In Genesis 18, discussing His judgment over Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham, God does not specify which particular sins have "been a foul odor up to Heaven" before Him. In Genesis 19, we have the two angels, appearing as young men, going down to Sodom, and the attempt at gang rape of them. Note the phrase: gang rape. Not homosexual sex, forcible rape by a mob. In case no one ever explained this, there is a difference. A woman who may not only consent to but actively seek out sex with her husband is not fair game for a mob of rapists; neither are gay men, and neither are angels.

In chapter 16 of his prophetic book, Ezekiel spells out what sins Sodom was convicted of in the divine judgment. This is backed up by allusions in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and in our Lord's own comparison of the Lake Cities to S&G. The sins are spelled out: failure to care for the needy, a life of luxurious ease, selfishness, and "vile and detestable things". You are welcome to think that included consensual gay sex if you like; I believe it refers to abuse of the poor, the powerless, the stranger among them, including by forcible rape.

And people today are inclined to commit the same sins -- watch TV, read ads online and in the papers. Let's abolish welfare; those people are shiftless and don't deserve our help. Does the country to our south have people in grinding poverty who want to work to care for their families? Not our problem; if any come here, arrest them and ship them back. Is there bullying and violence in our schools? Turn a blind eye; "boys will be boys", after all. Ever see demonstrations? Mob violence on the move. But those things are not what S&G were condemned for, despite the explicit words of Scripture that they were; it must have been them there gays!

 

[Archer93]

Ahhh, the point of it all. Why were the cities so corrupt that God needed to visit them directly? Of course stopping as far as the outside of them. People were crying out to the God of the Israelites who were not Hebrews. What could have been the condition of those cities (and others around them)?

We conservative Christians see things in thme that we see in our society now and civilizations throughout time. A growing permissiveness of a sexual perversion and violence nature. The two seem quite connected. Even if taken as myth or metaphor, why has the homosexual aspect been the main theme for over two-thousand years?



But that only shows how connected the metaphor is to sexual depravity. Why would The Church for so many centuries see homosexuality in such a negative light IF homosexuals are such normal and wonderful people? How much money was rejected by not being liberally tolerant and multi-inclusive??? Especially since so many people connected IN The Church seemed to be quite licentious.

Thank you so much for linking sexuality with violence. I'm really feeling the love here.

EnemyParty II's answered most of your post, so I'll just comment that one reason why the attempted rape of the angels is hung on to so desperatly could be that a larger percentage of people are inclined to be haughty and disinclined to help the poor and the needy- look at the number of people on this site with Christians icons who have objected in the strongest possible way to the idea of a healthcare scheme in the US that will benefit the said poor and needy because they object to 'paying for someone else's ingrowing toenail' (how greedy and selfish is that???), than there is of people who are inclined to form relationships with people of the same sex.

Make the latter the sole reason for S&G, and there's a free pass for the former.

There's licentious people in the church? Professing Christians aren't always as sexually 'moral' as they proclaim? There are *gasp* religious hypocrites? Heavens to Murgatroyd! Say it ain't so, Joe!

Seriously. Look at this list of undesirables
List of Christian evangelist scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-all of whom have brought their religion into disrepute- and ask yourself who is worse: an openly gay person or someone who lies about it; someone who freely contributes their financial resources to help others or someone who misappropriates such funds; someone who is faithful to their partner (regardless of whether they are gay, straight or anywhere inbetween) or someone who conducts affairs?

 

[Jnwaco]

I keep seeing the "consenting adults" charge thrown around - are some of you actually saying that sex outside of marraige is okay, too?

 

[Archer93]

I keep seeing the "consenting adults" charge thrown around - are some of you actually saying that sex outside of marraige is okay, too?

Yep. Totally.
Be responsible about it, though.

Counterpoint- are you actually saying that marriage alone makes sex okay? No other criteria?

 

[Polycarp1]

I keep seeing the "consenting adults" charge thrown around - are some of you actually saying that sex outside of marraige is okay, too?

I'll address that -- I believe that the appropriate place for sex is within a committed lifelong relationship. (I'm specifically not using the term "marriage" there because different people put different meanings on the word. Is a gay couple who have undertaken vows before God in Massachusetts married? How about the Hollywood couple who got hitched in Vegas and then divorced within two weeks? How about a mixed-race couple in, say, Mississippi in 1950, legally prohibited from cpmtracting a civil marriage, who set up as a common-law couple and kept their vows to each other for life?)

But Scripture does not condemn concubines, or pre-marital sex in so many words. What it condemns is porneia -- fornication, licentiousness, promiscuity -- and adultery -- breaking the marriage bond in ways not specifically provided for (e.g., a childless wife might have her husband sleep with a maidservant to give herself a son; the begetting of a son for a childless decesased brother was a duty, so that his widow would have a son to provide for her).

I for one am saying consent and commitment are the keys to the proper use of sex. And that together, they comprise what a marriage is in the eyes of God, who sees the two flesh becoming one -- not whether preacher X and his congregation approve or whether the king or the legislature licenses this as a legally valid marriage, but what God sees in their hearts.

 

[lawtonfogle]

And as usual, I am thoroughly disgusted by the idea that "good Christians" equate consensual sex between adults and child molestation, to the point that they insist on hijacking every thread on the subject of homosexuality to bring up that equivalence. God will judge them as they judge -- and I have enough mercy in myself, barely, to hope He does not equate their sex lives within marriage with men raping little girls, as they do in judging their fellow men. But that's how He said He would judge.

Well just to make sure you understand, I do not make that comparison. I compare the attractions, but not the actions.

That being said, I have recently found out there is a middle ground. How do you feel about people comparing consensual sex with adults with consensual (including legally consensual) sex with children?

 

[Keres]

From Ollie:

My hypothetical innocent pedophile does not desire sex with children
​

Then he isn't a pedophile. Do you have a real argument?
​

Every time I think this argument is hopeless, you say something new that looks like I can use to get through to you that pedophiles are human, too.

But before I get caught up in once again in a hopeless argument, I need you to clear up the statement quoted above.

Now, you claim that a pedophile is not a pedophile unless he is a vile pedophile. That he is only a pedophile if he "desires" children, and you previously* defined "desire" as a fantasy to rape.

So tell me, are you also claiming that every gay man fantasizes about raping straight men in the shower? And he does not fantasize about rape he is not really gay?

* You said:

I have not suggested anywhere discriminating against pedophiles who have not acted on their desires. I am however, pointing out a pedophile should be discouraged from action on their desires because their desire involves someone who is incapable of consent. Just like a guy who fantasizes about raping women should be discouraged from acting out those actions.​

Hey, Ollie:

If you are using any definition other than this one for the term 'pedophile'

pe⋅do⋅phile

   /ˈpi

dəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pee-duh-fahyl] –noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

I'll even provide you with a reference to this definition: pedophile. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 04, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: Pedophile | Definition of Pedophile at Dictionary.com:

Please provide it and cite your source for the definition. You do not get to redefine words to fit your agenda.

A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. A young child cannot consent to sex.

A homosexual is sexually attracted to members of their own gender. A fellow adult member of their own gender is perfectly capable of consenting to sex.

A heterosexual is sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender. A fellow adult member of the opposite gender is perfectly capable of consenting to sex.

Therefore, a homosexual is incomparable to a pedophile. A homosexual is just as 'right' as a homosexual, as both desire to have sex with consenting adults.

Since you still have not managed to counter the argument above or even actually address the argument above, I will consider you to have conceded the point. If you continue to use the comparison, you will be proving once and for all, beyond doubt, that your comparison is based purely in bigotry and hatred of homosexuals.

Now, you claim that a pedophile is not a pedophile unless he is a vile pedophile. That he is only a pedophile if he "desires" children, and you previously* defined "desire" as a fantasy to rape.

So tell me, are you also claiming that every gay man fantasizes about raping straight men in the shower? And he does not fantasize about rape he is not really gay?

* You said:

I have not suggested anywhere discriminating against pedophiles who have not acted on their desires. I am however, pointing out a pedophile should be discouraged from action on their desires because their desire involves someone who is incapable of consent. Just like a guy who fantasizes about raping women should be discouraged from acting out those actions.​

I appreciate you providing the quote, so that everyone can see how you lied in the colored portion in your intent to misrepresent my position. Here is another quote where I defined the use of the word desire, just to clarify how well you bore false witness against me.

What the homosexual desires involves consenting adults.

Because a pedophile's desires involve someone who cannot consent, whether they act upon it or not. Therefore, the difference between a homosexual (who desires to have sex with a consenting adult) and a pedophile are clear, and the two should not be equated anymore than a heterosexual (who desires to have sex with a consenting adult) should be compared to a pedophile.

And the quote you provided above, in context:

And please stop lying about what I have stated in this thread, I have not suggested anywhere discriminating against pedophiles who have not acted on their desires. I am however, pointing out a pedophile should be discouraged from action on their desires because their desire involves someone who is incapable of consent. Just like a guy who fantasizes about raping women should be discouraged from acting out those actions.

But since a homosexual's desires involve consenting adults, it's incomparable to a pedophile or wanna-be rapist's desires, and the only reason to try to equate them is bigotry towards homosexuals.​

Now, let me be blunt.

Per the bible, homosexual sex is a sin.

However, bearing false witness is not only a sin, it is a commandment violation that, rather than being a law provided by Moses or Paul, is handed down by God himself.
​

 

[Archer93]

Well just to make sure you understand, I do not make that comparison. I compare the attractions, but not the actions.

That being said, I have recently found out there is a middle ground. How do you feel about people comparing consensual sex with adults with consensual (including legally consensual) sex with children?

May I?

I'm less concerned with legal capacity to consent and more with the mental capacity. The two do not always overlap; people don't become magically mentally able to consent at the moment they become legally able to consent.

What do you generally mean by 'children'?
I can't see a five year old being able to understand the matter and being able to consent, I can see a fifteen year old being able to do so.
Both are legal minors, but the latter is much more capable of understanding the concept of sex.
Actually, I don't really see ten year olds being able to make a fully informed decision either. Twelve? Thirteen? Fourteen? A case-by-case basis would be best for working that one out.

Also, a twenty year old Down's Syndrome sufferer may be biologically old enough to consent legally, but not capable of meaningfully consenting mentally.

There are also issues of age difference. A fifteen year old and a sixteen year old- not inherantly a problem. Fifteen and thirty? There's more probability of a coersive element, which would affect the capacity to give full consent.

 

[Keres]

May I?

I'm less concerned with legal capacity to consent and more with the mental capacity. The two do not always overlap; people don't become magically mentally able to consent at the moment they become legally able to consent.

What do you generally mean by 'children'?
I can't see a five year old being able to understand the matter and being able to consent, I can see a fifteen year old being able to do so.
Both are legal minors, but the latter is much more capable of understanding the concept of sex.
Actually, I don't really see ten year olds being able to make a fully informed decision either. Twelve? Thirteen? Fourteen? A case-by-case basis would be best for working that one out.

Also, a twenty year old Down's Syndrome sufferer may be biologically old enough to consent legally, but not capable of meaningfully consenting mentally.

There are also issues of age difference. A fifteen year old and a sixteen year old- not inherantly a problem. Fifteen and thirty? There's more probability of a coersive element, which would affect the capacity to give full consent.

Pedophilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to young prepubescent children
Ephebophilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to adolescents between 15 and 17.99999999.
Hebephilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to a pubescent children, usually ages 12-14.


A Pedophile and a Hebephile are attracted to those who are incapable of consent. An Ephebophile is attracted to someone might be, but most likely (say 99%) is not capable of consent.