i think it is comparable.

blacks were blamed for being black, some really extreme racist thought it was a black persons fault for being born black = today it is the same for BLT

blacks were killed for being black = today it is the same for BLT

blacks were the butts of many jokes = today it is the same for BLT

blacks were considered less than = today it is the same for BLT

blacks were considered defective = today it is the same for BLT

when a black entered a room they turned heads, people wispered = today it is the same for BLT


why should this accurate comparison be considered to be an insult to a black person


So basically what you are saying is that blacks were brutalized, marginalized, and ostracized for who they innately are...something that they could not change. Sounds exactly like what is going on in the GLBT community to me.

The way I see America going now I am sure that they will have every state in the future. But that's another issue. As for voters, if they were for gays then they would have no problem with gay unions.


For the record, the issue that was voted on was not gay unions, but specifically gay marriage. That is something that was widely agreed would never be agreed upon by the public at large. Had the issue of gay civil unions been proposed the results probably would have been very different.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/


Sometimes basic knowledge is sufficient on some subjects.


In this case, basic is far from sufficient.

1. Manhood and womanhood are roles defined by society.


Very true...no disagreement there.


2. There are times when I feel like killing a person, these feelings are normal. Are you advocating that I should ignore such a strong impulse just as you advocate a homosexual or crossdresser are justified in giving into their impulses??


Your feelings are a response to an external stimulus. You can simply remove the stimulus and you won't experience these sensations. If you are a person that identifies as GLBT, then the stimulus can never be removed since it is part of your being.


3. Yes I do expect homosexuals to live their lives in shame and pain, life is pain. We all experience pain. We all live with it unwillingly. My grandmother died. I didn't want to live my life in denial about my anger or about my pain. But, life isn't about me. Life is shared. It is unfair for me to live amongst others and force them to accept my impulses and desires. Why should a homosexual get preferential treatment.


Since you stated that everyone is expected to suffer, ie. homosexuals and straight people alike then I have no problem with this statement.

i didnt even know the law was going through legislation there and here it is just being sprung on me like that. i honestly dont know what to make of gay marriage. :confused:

The debate and new law process has been going on for a while now in Spain. It has passed in Canada as well.

To Vicky:

Murder and rape have been around as long as man has been around. Should those be okay??

Also..

If a man crossdresses as a woman, he is asking to be treated in a manner that defies natural law. At the heart of crossdressing is deception. If crossdressers are asking not to be judged on their appearance then they should not use their appearance as a means to an end. In other words, they should not appear as a woman to be treated as a woman. Womanhood is more than just an appearance. It is defined by more than one person. Our entire society is defined by more than one person. Under God we are all equal. Under secularism/science/objectivism we are all one. Which is why utilitarianism is better than individualism.



I have read your words what you point.
Just because one has an appendage between their legs dose not make them a man. It most of the time makes them male sexed. Then there are those that are born different from male or female. There is visible proof between their legs. Can all humans born with eyes see? No. There is an effect some where between and in the eyes and the brain that make them blind.
Same thing with humans with or with out an appendage between their legs. It means nothing to the brain.


It is wrong for a transgender/transsexual/ to dress as the oppeset sex?

I guess America has a long way to go also. They openly told the world that they are not for homosexuality in the last election.

Uh sorry the vote was about the America wanting war. GLBT were used to swing the last votes.
Actually I believe that people (especially Bahamians) are more educated on homosexuality than they are on most subjects. Your comment shows ignorance. Bahamians are so ignorant of GLBT issues its not funny. I believe it would be ignorance to ignore what we believe and allow the world to direct our paths and not God.

We were all born in sin an iniquity Dorsett. The only perfect person God made was Adam and after he sinned we all sinned.For this to have happened there is one of a few thing that happened.
1 God/The Creator thought he/she could create perfection but was/is not powerful enough and failed. Because if Adam was perfect Adam would still be perfect.
2 God/The Creator could not create perfection we just think he/she can.
3 God/The Creator did not create perfection for what ever reason was his/her reason.
So if someone was born Gay or in any other way that was not God's original plan.. Don't blame God. God created a perfect man and man gave birth to a sinful child. The sins of the parents fall upon the children. So what you are saying is something can exist even though God/the Creator did not create it.

If you knew me you would know that I don't agree with everyone on this site (Christian or not). I have a few people that I really consider friends and they believe what I believe.


There is no where in the Bible that says that it was a sin to be black. Thank you for your comments.

I remember a verse in the Bible where is says slaves should be obedient to their owners. Why are you not a slave?

It baffles me how people can compare racism against black people, to discrimination against homosexuals.
There is no comparison at all, and anyone who thinks there is, does not know how much of an insult that is to black people.

Hate is hate is hate no matter how you package it.

:uh: FYI: The only place being a sissy is SUCH a heated topic as you put it is on this website.

Then what was the protest about during the gay cruise? Radio news papers
You don't get around much do you?

Finekameo:

1. My feelings of love, anger, pain are not based on some external stimuli. I don't find love or anger or pain. I express love, anger and pain. These are internal. I express these emotions to objects outside of me. But I can be in love with an imaginary person. I can even hate people I don't know. Racist people do it all the time. There are even blind people that are racist.

2. Straight people suffer in life all of the time. The difference is that their sexuality is not the source of their suffering. Otherwise, we all suffer.

Vicky:

1. Sexuality and the expression of it in various forms is a choice. For homosexuals and well as for heterosexuals. A penis does not express heterosexuality. Even blindness does not express sight or the lack of sight. Blind people do see, just not with their eyes. Humans are not born gay, lesbian or straight -- there's tons of pyschological evidence that says otherwise. But when we speak of genetics -- and that's what we do when we say people are born gay, straight or lesbian -- then psychology is not the field of expertise that you go to. Biology is where you turn. The latest research on human biology comes from the Human Genome Project. To make it short and sweet -- there is no way that humans are born gay, lesbian or even straight. We are born sexual. Just like we are born linguistic, with the ability to speak. But an english speaking person is taught english. A french person is taught french. So no, homosexuality or trans-genderism, is not some brain defect. It is a social defect. A lapse in socialization. There are men who are stimulated by 9 year old girls. That is defined by us as a lapse in socialization. We call it a crime if he acts. There are men who are stimulated by dogs and goats. Also a lapse in socialization. We call it beastiality and label it as wrong. Society defines all social expressions, from speaking english to being christian to being heterosexual and so on. Because all of these are shared behavior. These are not things that you define on your own. You can't be christian or speak english or be homosexual by yourself. So society tells you what they are and how to do them. Society can also tell you that the act is wrong. Just as society defines proper and improper english. There is proper and improper sexual expression. GLBT are examples of improper sexual expression.

1. Manhood and womanhood are roles defined by society.

2. There are times when I feel like killing a person, these feelings are normal. Are you advocating that I should ignore such a strong impulse just as you advocate a homosexual or crossdresser are justified in giving into their impulses??

3. Yes I do expect homosexuals to live their lives in shame and pain, life is pain. We all experience pain. We all live with it unwillingly. My grandmother died. I didn't want to live my life in denial about my anger or about my pain. But, life isn't about me. Life is shared. It is unfair for me to live amongst others and force them to accept my impulses and desires. Why should a homosexual get preferential treatment.

Not preferential equal.

1. Manhood and womanhood are roles defined by society.


Matthew 19:12 (King James Version)

12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

What about eunuchhood????

1 God/The Creator thought he/she could create perfection but was/is not powerful enough and failed. Because if Adam was perfect Adam would still be perfect.
2 God/The Creator could not create perfection we just think he/she can.
3 God/The Creator did not create perfection for what ever reason was his/her reason.
So what you are saying is something can exist even though God/the Creator did not create it.
I remember a verse in the Bible where is says slaves should be obedient to their owners. Why are you not a slave?


1. When you fall asleep at night, have you ever had a nightmare?? How is that possible. I would expect a nightmare is something bad and I wouldn't expect you to want something bad to happen to you. So somebody must've crawled into your brain and injected a nightmarish experience in there while you were sleeping. No?? Not possible?? So how do you explain having a nightmare when you alone control all of your thoughts. In essence, you are the God of your mind. Your mind can never be wrong or bad, since it is a world unto itself. In other words, in and of itself, your mind is perfect. Or it should be perfect. But believe it our not, your thoughts roam free even in your mind. They express themselves freely, sometimes with and sometimes without your direction. Same with God.

2. You are mixing context with content. There are parts of the bible that should be viewed contextually and the other parts should be viewed for content. When God spoke of not eating pork -- at the time, eating pork was pretty dangerous. God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for its sexual deviance. Not soon after, Lot's daughter had sex with him. Isn't that incest?? Why didn't God destroy them. Because incest would be the choice between a family member and another person. They didn't have a choice. Making the context and their intentions different than if it were bona fide incest.

1. Ummm. Its not equal treatment. Its preferential treatment if all humans have a suffering that they have to bare, while the suffering for a homosexual is his sexuality but he is allowed to drop his borden. That is not equality.

2. Eunuch-hood?? You are stretching. Are you going to ask if paralysis is also defined by society?? Don't you know, some people are born paralyzed and others are made so thru accident. You are going on tangents that have nothing to do with the subject.

Head of United Church of Christ endorses same-sex marriage resolution

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050628-1809-church-gaymarriage.html

Originally Posted by Vicky
1 God/The Creator thought he/she could create perfection but was/is not powerful enough and failed. Because if Adam was perfect Adam would still be perfect.
2 God/The Creator could not create perfection we just think he/she can.
3 God/The Creator did not create perfection for what ever reason was his/her reason.
So what you are saying is something can exist even though God/the Creator did not create it.
I remember a verse in the Bible where is says slaves should be obedient to their owners. Why are you not a slave?


1. When you fall asleep at night, have you ever had a nightmare?? How is that possible. I would expect a nightmare is something bad and I wouldn't expect you to want something bad to happen to you. So somebody must've crawled into your brain and injected a nightmarish experience in there while you were sleeping. No?? Not possible?? So how do you explain having a nightmare when you alone control all of your thoughts. In essence, you are the God of your mind. Your mind can never be wrong or bad, since it is a world unto itself. In other words, in and of itself, your mind is perfect. Or it should be perfect. But believe it our not, your thoughts roam free even in your mind. They express themselves freely, sometimes with and sometimes without your direction. Same with God.

2. You are mixing context with content. There are parts of the bible that should be viewed contextually and the other parts should be viewed for content. When God spoke of not eating pork -- at the time, eating pork was pretty dangerous. God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for its sexual deviance. Not soon after, Lot's daughter had sex with him. Isn't that incest?? Why didn't God destroy them. Because incest would be the choice between a family member and another person. They didn't have a choice. Making the context and their intentions different than if it were bona fide incest.


I don't see your point to my above statment.

Following is a list of every verse in the Bible that refers to the sins of Sodom. Perhaps you can now point out every time that homosexuality occurs in this list:

Genesis 13:13: But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Genesis 18:20: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Genesis 19:13: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Deuteronomy 29:17-26: And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which [were] among them:)...[And that] the whole land thereof [is] brimstone, and salt, [and] burning...like the overthrow of Sodom...which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath...Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? what [meaneth] the heat of this great anger? Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers...For
they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and [whom] he had not given unto them:
(Just idolatry and false gods; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Deuteronomy 32:32-38: For their vine [is] of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes [are] grapes of gall, their clusters [are] bitter...And he shall say, Where [are] their gods, [their] rock in whom they trusted, Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, [and] drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, [and] be your protection.
(idolatry again; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Isaiah 1:9-23: Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah....How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: Thy princes [are] rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. (hmmm...murder, greed, thievery, rebelliousness, covetness; nope, no homosexuality there)

Isaiah 3:8-15: For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings [are] against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide [it] not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil
of the poor [is] in your houses. What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poo r?
(mistreating the poor; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Isaiah 13: 11-19: And I will punish the world for [their] evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible....And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. (haughtiness, yes, but no homosexuality.)

Jeremiah 23:10-14: For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth...For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the LORD....And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from h is wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah. (adultery, lying by priests and prophets; nope, no homosexuality in there)

Jeremiah 49:16-18: Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, [and] the pride of thine heart...Also Edom shall be a desolation: every one that goeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss at all the plagues thereof. As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. (evil and pride, but still no homosexuality)

Jeremiah 50:2-40: Declare ye among the nations...say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces....thou hast striven against the LORD...for she hath been proud against the LORD...As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour [cities] thereof, saith the LORD; [so] shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein. (there's that idolatry and pride again, but still no homosexuality )

Lamentations 4:3-6: ...the daughter of my people [is become] cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, [and] no man breaketh [it] unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was over thrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. (cruelty, failure to tend the young and the poor, but still no homosexuality)

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good]. (Well THAT's pretty clear, huh? But what are we missing in that list? Oh yeah...homosexuality)

Amos 4:1-11: Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that [are] in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink. I have overthrown [some] of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. (oppression, mistreating the needy...still no homosexuality)

Zephaniah 2:8: I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the revilings of the children of Ammon, whereby they have reproached my people, and magnified [themselves] against their border. Therefore [as] I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah...This shall they have for their pride, because they have reproached and magnified [themselves] against the people of the LORD of hosts. (there's that pride again, and the intimation of inhospitality, but still no homosexuality)

Well, so much for the Old Testament's linkage of Sodom with homosexuality. Maybe the fundamentalists were referring to something in the New Testament? Let's see...

Matthew 20:11: And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it....And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet....Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Jesus said these words; they draw a comparison to inhospitality, but there's still no homosexuality there)

Matthew 11:19-24: The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners....Then began [Jesus] to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes....And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been
done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day....But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. (They ridiculed Jesus and treated him with utmost inhospitality, refusing to repent...but still no mention of homosexuality)

Mark 6:10-11: And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Another repetition of the instruction against inhospitality, but still no mention of homosexuality)

Luke 10:10-12: But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say. Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. (There's that inhospitality reference again, but still no homosexuality mentioned)

Luke 17:26-29: And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] al l. (still no mention of homosexuality)

2 Peter 2:6: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly. (Ungodly? Is that idolatry again? It sure isn't homosexuality)

Jude 1:7-8: 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. Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Awww...this one comes SO close, but no cigar; the Greek word translated here as "fornication" is "porneia" and had a distinctly heterosexual con notation; and the "strange flesh" was a reference to angels or "sons of God" that WOMEN had sex with [see Genesis 6:1-4] according
to Jewish tradition; still no mention of homosexuality)


Well, except for a brief mention of Sodom in Revelations (where there is no reference to the city's supposed sins), I'm afraid we've covered them all. Now it's up to the fundamentalists. Surely they should have no difficulty pointing out ALL the verses in the Bible that refer to the sin of Sodom being that of homosexuality.

But they'll have to make them up first. ;-)

But we're not done yet. The traditional concept of the sin of Sodom arises from the fact that the Hebrew word here translated as "to know" (yadha) is used by itself in ten places in the Old Testament to denote heterosexual intercourse. In five additional
texts it is used in conjunction with mishkabh (in this context, "to lie") to mean the same thing. But yadha appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual connotation, to simply mean "get acquainted with" or "learn of."

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to homosexual coitus, with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh 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. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors.

An alternate theory has been developed by some biblical scholars. Since yadha commonly means "to get acquainted with," the demand to "know" the visitors may well have implied some serious breach of the rules of hospitality. Several considerations provide support for this view.

In the first place, Lot was not a native of Sodom, but had the status of resident alien, or ger. As such, he may not have had the right to admit unidentified foreigners to the city. City gates were closed at night expressly to prevent lawless or subversive aliens from entering on unknown errands, and travelers carried credentials because they might at any time be asked to prove that they were abroad on legitimate business. Thus we might translate "Bring them out to us, that we might know them" a s "We wish to know whom you are bringing into our city" or (in the vernacular of WWII German movies) "Ve vant to see your papers!" Lot's refusal to turn his visitors over to this horde of vigilantes is totally in keeping with the then contemporary laws of etiquette, because in those days no civic police force protected strangers in a city. Any kind of robbery or physical abuse could have been meted out to the two angels if he had agreed to surrender them, but in his home they were safe. He was obliged to protect them as honored guests. It is certain that the Sodomites were demanding he violate the code of hospitality, but not AT ALL
clear from the text that they were inclined to indulge in homosexual acts.

Lastly, even if the fundamentalists must insist (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding) that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the strangers, that's a matter of rape, not homosexual love. I think we can all agree that rape is right up there on the list of big sins, and further that it is an act of power, control, and violence, not of love between consenting adults.

There's another Old Testament passage that is relevant. The story is found in Judges 19:14-28. It bears a striking resemblance to the Sodom story -- a traveler arrives at the city (in this case, Gilbeah). There he meets an old man who is, like Lot, a resident alien. The old man warns the traveler that he should not stay in the town square, and he extends the hand of hospitality in accordance with Holy law, inviting the traveler to share his abode for the night. But the men of the city surround the old man's house and demand that the traveler be sent out so "that we may know him" (there's that "yadha" again). The old man refuses,
but offers his virgin daughter and his concubine to the mob instead. When the crowd refuses the offer, the old man throws his concubine outside as a diversion, whereupon the "base fellows" in the mob rape and abuse her all night, leaving her dying at the threshhold. When the Israelites learn of the abuse of the concubine, they rise up against Gilbeah and, with God's help, destroy
the city.

Here we have an instance almost identical to Sodom, in which a city is destroyed following inhospitality to strangers, and a clear case of rape. Except this time it was a heterosexual rape. Yet no one uses this story to imply God's condemnation of heterosexuality in general. It is specious, then, to suggest that the story of Sodom is instructional with regard to homosexuality in
general.

Those who insist that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality are denying the very Bible they claim to revere, and attempting to push a laden camel through the eye of a needle. They are required to make five outrageous leaps of faith: (1) homosexual love is equal to rape; (2) "yadha" meant homosexual acts only once or twice and something else 953 times; (2) all of the other references to Sodom's sins contained in the Bible are in error, incomplete, or obfuscatory; (4) the strict codes regarding hospitality and the safety of travelers were immaterial; and (5) the concubine of the man of Gilbeah was a male.