You have some severe issues, that's just the truth. My point was, you conveniently *LEFT* out the sexual suggestion of Genesis Ch. 19 V. 5 -- end of story. Then you tried to justify it with some warping of ancient aramaic.

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/sodom2.html

"(4) The most important word here, however, is yadha (Strong, #3045). Like the English verb "know," yadha is applied in the OT to a wide range of circumstances, including having "sexual knowledge" (sex with someone). D.S. Bailey noted (1955) that yadha is never used anywhere (else) in the OT to refer to homosexual union, while another word shakhabh ("lie down" for rest or sex, #7601) is used to refer to cases of "illicit sex," including incest, adultery, rape, same-sex union, and bestiality (for the last two, see Lev 18:22-23). Therefore, he concluded that yadha in 19:5 meant simply to "get acquainted with" – to find out whether these strangers held hostile intentions toward the city.10 Bailey's view has been accepted by some interpreters (e.g. John McNeill, John Boswell, Marvin Pope), but rejected by others (e.g. Gerard von Rad, Tom Horner, Victor Hamilton). However, as Horner points out,11 a word in Hebrew (as in every language) can only be precisely understood in its context; and Lot's offer to hand over his two virgin daughters for sexual abuse (yadha in 19:8 clearly has a sexual meaning) makes most sense as an attempt to satisfy the mob's sexual lust for the male visitors. Calvin (1509-64) suggested that the men of Sodom meant to frame their question in a concealed way, to hide their real, more-sinister motives. Maybe so, maybe not, since they had been at this so long."

-- Can you read?? Do you see the part where *YADHA* has an explicit sexual meaning. And the men of town didn't say they wanted to rape them. They said they wanted to have sex with them. Do you know any human being that would ever ask permission to rape another person??

-- Hell no.
Very interesting post but there is a bit left out.
"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."

Also why would Lot offer his daughters to homosexual men it is a pointless act. Why did he not offer him self to save his visitors. Also with the Sodom story in the Bible there referances to other sins but no other about homosexuality.
Rape can never equal consensual homosexual sex, it is an act or violence and power. No matter what you say you can't change this. The GLBT I know are not looking for the right to rape they are just looking for the right to live and love whom they want with the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Please try again.



Bahmaboy:

Google the term "homosexuality/genetics". You'll find the latest research done by the human genome project. Also, there's a book "Nature vs Nuture". I can't remember the name of the researchers but I think you can find it on amazon. Anyway, socialization doesn't solely occur in the home. There are parents who raise children in a christian home, but still the child commits crimes. The theory was once that criminals were born criminal-minded. That theory has been abandoned a long time ago. Socialization happens in society. Not just the home. There is school. Church. Friends. And other social peer groups that help mold and shape the individual's psyche. The same thing was said about intelligence. But Einstein's parents had IQ's that were about half of his. Heisenberg's parents were even dumber. So were Edward Witten. But these are the most intelligent men in the world's history.

You have some severe issues, that's just the truth. My point was, you conveniently *LEFT* out the sexual suggestion of Genesis Ch. 19 V. 5 -- end of story. Then you tried to justify it with some warping of ancient aramaic.

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/sodom2.html

"(4) The most important word here, however, is yadha (Strong, #3045). Like the English verb "know," yadha is applied in the OT to a wide range of circumstances, including having "sexual knowledge" (sex with someone). D.S. Bailey noted (1955) that yadha is never used anywhere (else) in the OT to refer to homosexual union, while another word shakhabh ("lie down" for rest or sex, #7601) is used to refer to cases of "illicit sex," including incest, adultery, rape, same-sex union, and bestiality (for the last two, see Lev 18:22-23). Therefore, he concluded that yadha in 19:5 meant simply to "get acquainted with" – to find out whether these strangers held hostile intentions toward the city.10 Bailey's view has been accepted by some interpreters (e.g. John McNeill, John Boswell, Marvin Pope), but rejected by others (e.g. Gerard von Rad, Tom Horner, Victor Hamilton). However, as Horner points out,11 a word in Hebrew (as in every language) can only be precisely understood in its context; and Lot's offer to hand over his two virgin daughters for sexual abuse (yadha in 19:8 clearly has a sexual meaning) makes most sense as an attempt to satisfy the mob's sexual lust for the male visitors. Calvin (1509-64) suggested that the men of Sodom meant to frame their question in a concealed way, to hide their real, more-sinister motives. Maybe so, maybe not, since they had been at this so long."

-- Can you read?? Do you see the part where *YADHA* has an explicit sexual meaning. And the men of town didn't say they wanted to rape them. They said they wanted to have sex with them. Do you know any human being that would ever ask permission to rape another person??

-- Hell no.


Bahmaboy:

Google the term "homosexuality/genetics". You'll find the latest research done by the human genome project. Also, there's a book "Nature vs Nuture". I can't remember the name of the researchers but I think you can find it on amazon. Anyway, socialization doesn't solely occur in the home. There are parents who raise children in a christian home, but still the child commits crimes. The theory was once that criminals were born criminal-minded. That theory has been abandoned a long time ago. Socialization happens in society. Not just the home. There is school. Church. Friends. And other social peer groups that help mold and shape the individual's psyche. The same thing was said about intelligence. But Einstein's parents had IQ's that were about half of his. Heisenberg's parents were even dumber. So were Edward Witten. But these are the most intelligent men in the world's history.


I addressed your genome on post 317 you did not respond what happened did you get stuck??

Lot offered his daughters to homosexual men because offering himself would be consenting their homosexual deeds. He was pleading with them not to commit such a sin. To offer himself would be condoning their behavior. I posted the objective research of scholars not the warped speculation of my jilted mind. You can do the research and post references independent of your personal views as I did to confirm what you are saying. As far as I'm concerned you are making things up. Every time I've researched the word "Yadha" it says the same thing. That when the men spoke in reference to Lot's angelic visitors it was the same context when Lot spoke of giving his daughters to the men of the city. Which in both cases have a sexual context.

I didn't address post #317 because I didn't feel it was worth my time.

Firstly, Klinefelter's syndrome is the evidence of effemininity amongst men. Not homosexuality. All you are doing is googling terms to create an argument. You haven't actually done any of the reading or research to verify any of this. Because in effect what you are saying is that effeminate men are homosexual -- which is not the case. Go back and do your research carefully. Or you can read research done by Matt Ridley who happens to be genetics' version of Einstein. Stop trying to find shreds of evidence and tying them together to make a point when they have no cohesion or continuity.

Secondly, are you sure you know what gynecomastia is?? First of all, all men have mammory glands. Which is why when bodybuilders take steroids or artificial testosterone their bodies counteract the overproduction of testosterone by shutting down the natural production of testosterone in the testicles. Which is why the testicles shrink. Also, to level out the hormones the body produces estrogen. Yes, men have natural production of estrogen signaled by the pituitary gland. Having estrogen doesn't make you a woman or a homosexual. You spoke of Eunuchs earlier. A eunuch has no testicles. But they still have testosterone. Ever heard of the lutienizing hormone.

*sighs*

I can't continue this squabbling.

This is why I skipped your posts because to me you are just jibbering to cover up some deep-seeded resentment. Nothing you say is backed by firm scientific evidence.

I didn't address post #317 because I didn't feel it was worth my time.

Firstly, Klinefelter's syndrome is the evidence of effemininity amongst men. Not homosexuality. All you are doing is googling terms to create an argument. You haven't actually done any of the reading or research to verify any of this. Because in effect what you are saying is that effeminate men are homosexual -- which is not the case. Go back and do your research carefully. Or you can read research done by Matt Ridley who happens to be genetics' version of Einstein. Stop trying to find shreds of evidence and tying them together to make a point when they have no cohesion or continuity.

Secondly, are you sure you know what gynecomastia is?? First of all, all men have mammory glands. Which is why when bodybuilders take steroids or artificial testosterone their bodies counteract the overproduction of testosterone by shutting down the natural production of testosterone in the testicles. Which is why the testicles shrink. Also, to level out the hormones the body produces estrogen. Yes, men have natural production of estrogen signaled by the pituitary gland. Having estrogen doesn't make you a woman or a homosexual. You spoke of Eunuchs earlier. A eunuch has no testicles. But they still have testosterone. Ever heard of the lutienizing hormone.

*sighs*

I can't continue this squabbling.

This is why I skipped your posts because to me you are just jibbering to cover up some deep-seeded resentment. Nothing you say is backed by firm scientific evidence.



MY HERO!!!
:o

Then what was the protest about during the gay cruise? Radio news papers
You don't get around much do you? :uh: You think so aye? And yes I do get out, point of reference: that other website that you were on Sunday trying to get people involved in your Homo topics BUT you got NO response :shaky: And I have stated & the record will show of all the web sites in the Bahamas THIS is the only one where Homosexuality is EVEN a topic of discussion. :bored:

The mainstream media is reporting on the latest research that purports to show that gay males and heterosexual males respond differently to certain pheromones.
May 11, 2005 - The New York Times has just reported on findings from Swedish researchers who claim to have found that gay males are attracted to a different kind of scent than heterosexual males.

"For Gay Men, an Attraction to a Different Kind of Scent," by Nicolas Wade (5/10/05) quotes Swedish researchers with the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm who have studied pheromones and the different ways women, gay males and heterosexual males react to them.

Lead researcher Dr. Ivanka Savic studied a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat and an estrogen-like compound in women's urine. Both of these have been suspected of being pheromones.

Savic and her associates found that that gay males responded to these pheromones in the same way women respond. Heterosexual males responded differently.

This study is being reported in the mainstream press as more evidence for a biological basis for homosexual behavior. However, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a lecturer in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law at Princeton University disagrees. According to Dr. Satinover*:

The key statement in the New York Times interview with one of the authors of the article is this:
"We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect," Dr. Savic said. "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions."

The same discussion arose after LeVay's study and he finally conceded--years later--that repetition of homosexual activity can change the brain to produce the effects he discovered--likewise here as the researchers state directly.

This study says nothing about homosexuality being innate (whether on a direct genetic or indirect, epigenetic hormonal-developmental basis). Likewise, if one changes the state of one's sexuality. The pheromone response would presumably change in consequence of behavioral-induced alterations in the underlying hypothalamic structures.

Because it is tacit and not explicit, the widely-held and erroneous presumption that brain structures are fixed and unresponsive to experience generates a second presumption, also tacit: That if a brain structure or function can be correlated to a behavioral trait then the trait must be both unchangeable and innate. Unaddressed and left non-explicit, this two-step sequence of tacit presumptions attached to explicit, high quality scientific data but of only a correlative kind, almost invariably generates in the mind of the scientifically unsophisticated something akin to a "belief."

Every single study that has emerged since the original LeVay study that falls into the above class--looking for or finding bimodal statistical physiological correlates (nervous system or otherwise) to homosexual versus heterosexual populations, in both males and females, however defined--comes with the same essential caveat: That cause and effect cannot be distinguished by the study.

Yet the press invariably editorializes, by implication or openly, that each new study somehow builds upon the last; that there exists a slowly but surely growing literature supporting the case that "homosexuality is biological," that "homosexuality is innate," "...genetic," "...unchangeable." Nothing could be further from the truth.

It would be identically and oppositely tendentious to say that "yet another study fails to find a biological, genetic, innate basis for homosexuality."

Dr. Warren Throckmorton has also examined this latest study and draws the following conclusions:
The study does show involuntary hypothalamic response associated with self-assessed sexual orientation
The study shows that gay males do react to the estrogen condition but in a different manner than they react to the testosterone condition
The study cannot shed light on the complicated question of whether sexual orientation of the participants is hard wired.
The brains of these participants may have acquired a sexual response to these chemicals as the result of past sexual experience. In other word, the response described in this study could well have been learned.
If these results hold up, this could explain why varying sexual attractions seem so "natural." Also, such conditioning could give insight into why changing sexual attractions is often experienced by those changing sexual preferences as a process of unlearning responses to environmental triggers.
Dr. Sander Breiner, a Psychoanalyst and Professor of Psychiatry at Michigan State University and Wayne State University, has observed of this study:
The study is interesting and gives some information about the brain, particularly the hypothalamus. The information is not conclusive and only provides information.
Their studies of straight and gay man were not confirmed by their equal studies of lesbian and straight women. Furthermore, males who identify more with their mothers, and may appear somewhat more "effeminate" in behavior, may still function very adequately and comfortably in normal heterosexual relationships, including marriage and family. There is no study of this group of males. In addition, there is no study of a select group of very masculine appearing and acting (husky) males. The same consideration applies the study of women.

Males who have anxiety about feeling love and closeness to their mothers would unconsciously and--neuroendocrine-wise--erect barriers to similar responses to other females. This might delay their movement into adult heterosexuality but not necessarily or even likely to prevent it. Similar reasoning applies to lesbian females.

The difference between identical twins and fraternal twins has been noted in many other areas of psychological consonance. Identical twins very commonly develop a private language and communication that no one else in the family (especially the mother) can translate. This can last for many years. Therefore, the twin studies (identical and fraternal) do not establish any validity for organicity for homosexuality.

It is well known that rodents usually produce multiple births. It is also well known that when a male embryo lies between two female embryos that it will be a less aggressive male adult rodent than those male rodent embryos who were not so juxtapositioned. What is true for rodents is not true for humans as many other hormone studies have demonstrated.

More than 50 or 60 years an accidental hormonal study was done as I recall in Puerto Rico. Young women were given a drug that affected their sexual hormone balance. This resulted in many children being born whose genitals appeared to be females. These children were raised as little girls without any evidence of discomfort in this social structure. However, when they reached puberty, normal male genitalia developed. What had been thought to be a clitoris turned out to be a penis; and undescended testes descended. Following this unexpected event, the girls-now-turned boys were treated as boys and grew up to be men. Follow-up studies did not indicate any significant increase in homosexuality or decrease in percentage of marriages in this group. This old and infrequently referred to accidental study clearly demonstrates that it takes a great deal of psychological problems in the first five years of life to produce the imperfect conflict resolution of homosexuality.

The emotionally charged corridor in the brain is the amygdala and the hypothalamus leading to the pre-frontal cortex. Any emotional charge will cause this area of the brain to show increased activity. Therefore, increased activity in any part of this corridor only indicates an emotional charge, which could be anxiety, anger, depression, or love (to name a few). The study is interesting; but that is all.

People have been citing the LeVay study as concrete evidence that homosexuality has a genetic cause. The study was trash when he first released it and researchers making LeVay look even more ridiculous by picking apart the study.

Homosexuality is sexual behavior. Behavior changes your body. Vegetarians are a little different genetically from meat consumers. They weren't born that way, they became that way thru vegetarian behavior. Latent homosexuals who discover their sexual preference late in life are different from homosexuals who've always engaged in homosexual behavior.

Bahmaboy:

Google the term "homosexuality/genetics". You'll find the latest research done by the human genome project. Also, there's a book "Nature vs Nuture". I can't remember the name of the researchers but I think you can find it on amazon. Anyway, socialization doesn't solely occur in the home. There are parents who raise children in a christian home, but still the child commits crimes. The theory was once that criminals were born criminal-minded. That theory has been abandoned a long time ago. Socialization happens in society. Not just the home. There is school. Church. Friends. And other social peer groups that help mold and shape the individual's psyche. The same thing was said about intelligence. But Einstein's parents had IQ's that were about half of his. Heisenberg's parents were even dumber. So were Edward Witten. But these are the most intelligent men in the world's history.


mikkie, i know socialization doesnt only occur in the home this fact makes the theory that sexuality is learned more if e. the reason i say its more if e is if you say that it is learned from all those other sources wouldnt that make a person sexually confused. ie- a person grows up and is exposed (through the community, tv, movies, books, friends etc) to gays, straights, cross dressers, transgenders, nimpho's etc then under the learned theory the person will end up a bi sexual, cross dressing, thinking about becoming transgender nimphomanic. if you say that is incorrect assumption then what makes the person choose one over the other, also if they end up choosing then you play into the choice theory. ie people are exposed, see, and learn of these different sexual preferances and styles and they at some point choose one or maybe two. also what about people that grew up in consevative towns where the nearest openly gay person(s) was miles and miles away. believe it or not places like that exist, the only sexual presence is straight. i think sexuality is in us and the things that determine our sexual preferances was placed in us before we exited the womb. the reason i say this is you can put two kids from birth, a boy and a girl, on an island expose them to no sexuality at all and eventually they will discover sex on their own. even though the previous statement is just my theory. another reason i say the learned theory is if e is did you know most humans, especially males, discover masterbation on their own; before they even see it in a porno or in other words before learning of its exsistance. another reason the learned theory sounds off is most homosexuals say they fealt homosexual or different from an early age, as young a s 5 yrs old, before they even knew what a homosexual was, what it entales, or how to tell if someone was clearly homosexual etc. i know 5 is young to think you might be homosexual and when i read about it in books or saw it on a documentary i thought yeah right but a few weeks ago i thought back to my first crush and it was at 6 yrs old, i remeber it like yesterday it was the first day of school and this girl named Nadia blew a kiss at me; it was on for 6 years after that. any way i said that to say this that kids can and do have a sense of sexuality that young, they might not know how to have sex etc but they have a sence that hey i really, really like that girl or boy i'll share my lunchables with them.

also i would like to mention even though socialization doesnt only occur in the home it is the strongest form of it. ie: people that have a good relationship with their family would generally agree that everything they do or how they act they worry what is the family going to think.

Lot offered his daughters to homosexual men because offering himself would be consenting their homosexual deeds. He was pleading with them not to commit such a sin. To offer himself would be condoning their behavior. I posted the objective research of scholars not the warped speculation of my jilted mind. You can do the research and post references independent of your personal views as I did to confirm what you are saying. As far as I'm concerned you are making things up. Every time I've researched the word "Yadha" it says the same thing. That when the men spoke in reference to Lot's angelic visitors it was the same context when Lot spoke of giving his daughters to the men of the city. Which in both cases have a sexual context.


LOT offered his duaghter to homosexuals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????? i dont remeber reading that in the bible, but then again i didnt read the entire bible. i am sorry but if it is in the King James then that story must be false. come on now do yall think back in those days a man would actually offer his duaghter to a homosexual!?

Lot offered his daughters to homosexual men because offering himself would be consenting their homosexual deeds. He was pleading with them not to commit such a sin. To offer himself would be condoning their behavior. I posted the objective research of scholars not the warped speculation of my jilted mind. You did not post objectively you looked for info that went along with your agenda of discrimination and hate. You can do the research and post references independent of your personal views as I did to confirm what you are saying. I have just because you choose to believe the world is flat is your choice to look and think in another direction. And that’s ok. As far as I'm concerned you are making things up. I must work very hard at web design to have all those websites. Every time I've researched the word "Yadha" it says the same thing.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Yadha&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

1link
http://sara202000.persianblog.com/

2 link
http://www.arianews.com/music/history/yadha.htm

3 link
http://ralliance.org/Sodom_MGGM.html
Oh by the way that is not the Bahamas Rainbow Alliance.

4 link
http://kagawasan.netfirms.com/binayot/tekstongbiblikal8.shtml

5 link
http://www.musicindiaonline.com/lr/20/5609/

6 link
http://www.louh.com/Momeni/M0011.asp

7 link
http://www.ramaneeya.com/rms/ipower_rms/nv/WS_FTP.LOG

8 link
http://www.flameout.org/flameout/biblical/yadha.html

I don't need to go on

But by all means try and justify you objectivity/agenda/discrimination/hate.

That when the men spoke in reference to Lot's angelic visitors it was the same context when Lot spoke of giving his daughters to the men of the city. Which in both cases have a sexual context.


Fact is the people of Sodom were known for their inhospitality; it’s through out the Bible. Fact in the Middle East hospitality is very important. So important that if you’re mortal enemy came to visit you, you would welcome them and treat them as a guest.

Once these strangers entered Lots home he was obligated to protect them even if it meant him losing his life. But then again you have no clue of Middle Eastern culture. The men of Sodom were not homosexual, because if all the men in Sodom were homosexual it would have died out in 1 generation and would have never become a city.

The men of Sodom came with violence on their mind and in a mob.

You are welcome to try again.

The men of Sodom were not homosexual, because if all the men in Sodom were homosexual it would have died out in 1 generation and would have never become a city. HMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I didn't address post #317 because I didn't feel it was worth my time.

Firstly, Klinefelter's syndrome is the evidence of effemininity amongst men. Not homosexuality. All you are doing is googling terms to create an argument. You haven't actually done any of the reading or research to verify any of this. Because in effect what you are saying is that effeminate men are homosexual -- which is not the case. Go back and do your research carefully. Or you can read research done by Matt Ridley who happens to be genetics' version of Einstein. Stop trying to find shreds of evidence and tying them together to make a point when they have no cohesion or continuity.

Now I am showing you that its not just genetics that are what creates a human. It's also hormones in the womb. These hormones not only effect the body they effects the brain development.

Secondly, are you sure you know what gynecomastia is?? First of all, all men have mammory glands. Do you think so. Duh that is why transsexuals can grow breasts. Which is why when bodybuilders take steroids or artificial testosterone their bodies counteract the overproduction of testosterone by shutting down the natural production of testosterone in the testicles. so you know a bit about hormones Cool. But one tiny bit of info you missed or misinterpreted. First testosterone is not halted on the start of anti androgens(steroids). What happens is the testosterone receptors in the body are blocked and can't absorb the testosterone. Then the testes shut down This is what happens in transsexuals. Which is why the testicles shrink. Also, to level out the hormones the body produces estrogen. Yes, men have natural production of estrogen signaled by the pituitary gland. Having estrogen doesn't make you a woman or a homosexual.You are talking of hormones after birth The fact is the effect is hormones before birth while the fetus is developing. get it right You spoke of Eunuchs earlier. A eunuch has no testicles. But they still have testosterone. Ever heard of the lutienizing hormone.[QUOTE=MikkiForbes]Ah but so little it does not make a differance.
Part of the transition process for transexual is the removal of the testacals. [QUOTE=MikkiForbes]
On this website you will find a copy of Ovid's story of Salmacis and Hermaphrodites, along with a collection of artworks concerning Hermaphrodites and the modern conception of hermaphrodites. One out of every 50 people born in our modern society is born a hermaphrodite. Sometimes the doctors notice them at birth and perform surgery to make them one specific sex, or sometimes the "boy" doesn't find out until he starts growing breasts during puberty. Some societies kill them when they are discovered to be hermaphrodites. Rare societies, like an island in the South Pacific where hermaphrodites are common actually welcome them as a third official sex.
Do you really think the Jews would have used the name of a Greek God to describe ambiguous sex.
*sighs*

I can't continue this squabbling.

This is why I skipped your posts because to me you are just jibbering to cover up some deep-seeded resentment. Nothing you say is backed by firm scientific evidence.

Genesis Ch. 19 V. 8 -- Lot offers his wife to homosexual men. Its even there in my original post. The word "yadha" is used in Genesis Ch. 19 V. 8 when Lot offers his daughters to the men of the city. So it is safe to assume that in both cases "Yadha" means the same thing.

How can you discuss something that you haven't read. You're a waste of time. By the way, the Greeks were famous for their homosexuality -- did the Greeks die out??

Would the Jews have used Hermaphrodite?? You are all over the arena. What does that have to do with anything. The Greeks probably didn't use the word "hermaphrodite". Just like they didn't use homosexual or lesbian.

Genesis Ch. 19 V. 8 -- Lot offers his wife to homosexual men. Genesis 19:8 (King James Version)
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. Its even there in my original post. The word "yadha" is used in Genesis Ch. 19 V. 8 when Lot offers his daughters to the men of the city. So it is safe to assume that in both cases "Yadha" means the same thing.
Genesis 19:8 (King James Version)
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

You do the math 900+ Yadah is used to mean "get to know" as in get acquainted out of that it may have meant heterosexual sex because following text showed a result of children being born. One and only one time it is interpreted to mean homosexual consensual sex. Tell a lie long enough people will believe it to be the truth.

"From this one incident derives the English usage of "sodomy," "sodomite," etc., although the Bible suggests that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah goes well beyond homosexual acts. (Inhospitality appears to be a graver sin.) "Sodomy," meaning "unnatural sexual intercourse" dates back to the late thirteenth century, before Genesis had been fully translated into English," and "sodomite" in the sense of "sexual pervert" even predates "Sodomite" in the more primitive sense, "inhabitant of Sodom."
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20030924.shtml
Please try again

How can you discuss something that you haven't read. You're a waste of time. By the way, the Greeks were famous for their homosexuality -- did the Greeks die out??

Would the Jews have used Hermaphrodite?? You are all over the arena. What does that have to do with anything. The Greeks probably didn't use the word "hermaphrodite". Just like they didn't use homosexual or lesbian.

Yes the Greeks did use the word Hermaphroditus it was the name of the Greek god. Duh do some research.

" The word "lesbian" is derived from the island's name, after the poetess Sappho of Lesbos, who wrote about love between women." Hey that’s Greek to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbos

You are welcome to try again. Please....
Oh by the way I don't think Tinactin taste very good. :footmouth