quote:

---

God Hates Fags???
Re-read Genesis 19, Reverend Phelps.
By Kevin Cassell


-------------------------------------------------------------

Does God hate fags? Yes, according to the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Phelps and a handful of his followers travel all across the United States to loudly protest any individual or event that in their opinion contributes to the acceptance of the issues important to gay men and women in American culture. Their flamboyant protest at Matthew Shepard's funeral a few years back showed mainstream America the ugly face of the extremist Christian Right and, ironically as it turned out, established a kinder, gentler space for gays and lesbians in public discourse.

Returning to the question: Does God hate fags? Let's look at Genesis 19 in the Old Testament (the Torah if you're Jewish) of the Bible. Here's where we find the famous tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you are not gay, though, beware: Even the most casual reading of these passages strongly suggests that, far from hating gays, God hates straights!

Here's how the story unfolds: Two angels come to the gate of Sodom, where they are met by Lot. Lot is favored by the Lord Yahweh because he is, unlike the rest of Sodom's population, virtuous. They have come to warn Lot that Yahweh intends to destroy Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah, but that He will allow Lot and his family to flee the city providing they don't look back while doing so.

Kindly old Lot invites the angels into his home for a repast. While they have gathered inside, the men of Sodom congregate outside, horny as hell. They shout for Lot to turn the angels over to them, so that the men may get to "know" (i.e., have intercourse with) them. They are adamant in their desire to satisfy their craven appetites.

At that moment, kindly old Lot comes out and addresses the men. He announces that he'll happily throw them his two young daughters--"which have not yet known man"--so long as they leave the two angels unmolested: "Let me, I pray you, bring my daughters unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes," he pleads. But the men rebuke Lot.

Let's stop here for a moment. For centuries this chapter has been used as evidence of God's hatred of homosexuality. Because the men refuse to gang rape two little girls, they are gay -- therefore condemnable. Does this make sense?

And another thing: Being celestial beings, I assume angels don't have biological organs that we humans have. The only way these Sodomites can get to "know" these angels, homosexually, is by, well, "sodomizing" them. But why would God create angels with anuses? Surely no one shits in heaven.

Finally, think about it: Lot is, in God's eyes, the ONLY virtuous man in Sodom. Yet he is more than willing to toss his own daughters to a mob of perverts to be savagely gang raped. Is that "virtuous"?

The story continues: The next morning Lot, his wife, and his two daughters flee the condemned city. As they make their way into the surrounding mountains, "the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone out of heaven." Lot's wife, very understandably, looked back at the inferno engulfing her home. For this act of disobedience, she turned immediately into a pillar of salt, leaving Lot a widower. So much for the sanctity of that marriage!

So Lot ends up shacking up with his two daughters who are, let's recall, virgins. They live in a cave in the mountains of Zoar. After a while, it becomes apparent that no vigorous young studs will be dropping by, and the girls, feeling the pangs of maternal instinct, conspire to get their father drunk and have sex with him, so that they may propagate.

So the eldest gave him wine, "and lay with her father; and he perceived not that she lay down, nor when she arose." The next night the youngest did the same thing and, again, "he perceived not when she lay down, and when she arose." The two daughters, no longer virgins, got what they wanted: pregnant (with boys, of course). The eldest bore a son named Moab, who begat the Moabite tribe. The youngest bore a son named Ben-ammi, who begat the Ammonites.

Now, let's interpret these passages literally: God destroys Lot's legitimate marriage over a minor infraction, then allows incest--yes, incest--to replace it? Father-daughter incest, the most repugnant manifestation of heterosexual lust, is how Lot is rewarded by God for his "virtue"? And, seeing as the Moabites and Ammonites were doomed to destruction, kindly old Lot was even robbed of a legacy of which he could be proud.

And what's all this about Lot not "perceiving" his daughters laying with him? The guy's an old man, he's drunk, but he's still able to get a good enough woody going to deflower and impregnate--via orgasm--both of his own daughters!

Chapter 19 of the book of Genesis strikes me as a savage portrayal of the Lord Yahweh's apparent contempt for people who lead a normal, married, family-oriented heterosexual lifestyle. Clearly, it would have been better for Lot and his family to perish in the flames alongside the ravenous men who, despite all their faults, were virtuous enough to turn their backs on the prospect of gangbanging two innocent little girls. That the Lord Yahweh "saved" Lot only to condemn him to a life as an alcoholic widower making babies with his own grown babies points to something much more troubling than the assumed homosexuality of the occupants of Sodom.

What do you have to say now, Mr. Phelps?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

Thomas SSchimdt who wrote an excellant book on homosexulity (he goes into the orginal language) shows that it was homsexuality that was the primary reason for their judgment. Sorry, DLW, but you are wrong. Acts, but not the homosexulity. There wasn't any sin either, no sinners, just sinful acts. The king truly is naked.
Its there but you have to dig for it. And to dig, you have got to want to expend energy.

---

quote:

---

They were listed towards the end of any list of sins. I guess that means they count less when the condemned person clicks them off on his fingers in hell...farther down the line, God must be blind. DLW, thanks for the laugh you have made my day...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

When we sin are we sinners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

(speechlesssilencespeechlessilence)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLW

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

When we sin are we sinners?

---

When we are born with birth-defects are we sinners?
dlw

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

DLW,
Sociopaths, psychopaths and pediphiles are all born with genetic propensities towards murder and molestation of others. We know that in many cases, they cannot be reformed while some can through various treatments. But, this doesn't change the fact that the actions themselves are sins. Even though gays and lesbians might have been born with genetic factors that influence their thinking, acting on those thoughts is still sin. Not every person who is alive is necessarily meant to be married. There are lots of heteros that can and do live celebate lives, so there's no reason why gays and lesbians can't do the same so they won't keep commiting the sin of homosexual acts.

---

quote:

---

And just so that no one will accuse me of being prejudiced, I'm going to drop a bombshell here: I'm straight, but I do get aroused by certain images of women in the nude and in various sexual positions and acts with other women. I've struggled with this all my life and I cannot help that that I do get turned on by these thoughts and images. (I guess this would classify me as a bisexual). Anyway, I remember when I was a teenager and watching Jerry Springer they did a show about strippers and they had two men do a strip-tease act, and then two women did one. There was no real sexual response for me towards the male strippers, but there definitely was with the female ones.

---

quote:

---

But, my overall point is that even though someone is born with something that is out of their control, that doesn't give them the excuse to just go ahead and do it. We're all born with original sin, so we're all prone to commit whichever ones we each struggle with. That doesn't just automatically make us not responsible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLW

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

DLW,
Sociopaths, psychopaths and pediphiles are all born with genetic propensities towards murder and molestation of others. We know that in many cases, they cannot be reformed while some can through various treatments. But, this doesn't change the fact that the actions themselves are sins. Even though gays and lesbians might have been born with genetic factors that influence their thinking, acting on those thoughts is still sin. Not every person who is alive is necessarily meant to be married. There are lots of heteros that can and do live celebate lives, so there's no reason why gays and lesbians can't do the same so they won't keep commiting the sin of homosexual acts.

---

Homsexuality is likely not based that much on genetics but rather the hormonal balance that is formed while a fetus. See the Homosexuality link for where I cite evidence that supports this hypothesis.
The point is whether or not the homosexual is sinning by virtue of being a homosexual...
Yes, they may choose to be celibate, but as discussed in other links, not all acts of intimacy between constitutional homosexuals need be seen as violating the homosexual acts forbidden in the Bible. I tend to view these acts as forbidding anal sex between homosexuals, and I tend to think it is a good idea for heterosexuals to avoid this as well, but that is my interpretation.

quote:

---

And just so that no one will accuse me of being prejudiced, I'm going to drop a bombshell here: I'm straight, but I do get aroused by certain images of women in the nude and in various sexual positions and acts with other women. I've struggled with this all my life and I cannot help that that I do get turned on by these thoughts and images. (I guess this would classify me as a bisexual). Anyway, I remember when I was a teenager and watching Jerry Springer they did a show about strippers and they had two men do a strip-tease act, and then two women did one. There was no real sexual response for me towards the male strippers, but there definitely was with the female ones.

---

Wow, thanks for sharing. I think...

quote:

---

But, my overall point is that even though someone is born with something that is out of their control, that doesn't give them the excuse to just go ahead and do it. We're all born with original sin, so we're all prone to commit whichever ones we each struggle with. That doesn't just automatically make us not responsible.

---

We are still responsible to the ethical teachings of the Church regarding our sexualities. The question is how the ethical teachings should take into account the constitutional nature of homosexuality.

Oh, and I remember when I was in-between fifth and sixth grade and at a Swedish Language camp. I was at my first dance there ever and my initial request was for my male counselor to dance with me. I think he did for a little bit and then some female counselors encouraged me to dance with them and I did.

Anyways, I remember in seventh or eighth grade, when I was being a late-bloomer, being asked by an aunt and my grandparents about whether I was attracted to various females and being equivocal... .
Clearly, they were concerned about the development of my sexuality...

I also remember when my nemesis in Jr. High asked me if I liked boys and I quickly replied, "Yes,...for breakfast, lunch and dinner..."
dlw

---

quote:

---

Homsexuality is likely not based that much on genetics but rather the hormonal balance that is formed while a fetus.
The point is whether or not the homosexual is sinning by virtue of being a homosexual...
Yes, they may choose to be celibate, but as discussed in other links, not all acts of intimacy between constitutional homosexuals need be seen as violating the homosexual acts forbidden in the Bible. I tend to view these acts as forbidding anal sex between homosexuals, and I tend to think it is a good idea for heterosexuals to avoid this as well, but that is my interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

Hey, I was just going to edit the post I wrote before this last one by DLW, but there's no editting icon for me to click on allowing me to do it! What's up with that?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress
Yes, I just meant that WHATEVER the biological reason for people being born gay, lesbian or bi, these things are still the direct result of being born into a fallen world, and we are still responsible for controlling ourselves and trying not to give into sin.

Any form of sexual stimulation is only meant for marriage between a husband and wife. By sexual stimulation I mean any type of touching that causes arousal whether that touching is "petting" of breasts and genitalia, or anything else that causes a person to become phyically aroused. So, anal sex is not the only forbidden act for people. So is oral sex, sexual touching like I described above, vision-oriented stimulation, etc.

---