Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:04:04 -0800
From:         Graham Toal <gtoal@PIZZABOX.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: amendment 2
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

: No.  Wrong with a capital W.  Now what was I just saying about violence?
: When I talk about sexual relations between same-sex partners being forbidden,
: it's not interpretation.  Sodomy, or anal intercourse, is forbidden *by name*.

By name?  I thought the Bible said something like (this is from memory,
so excuse me if I paraphrase) "thou shalt not lie with a man as with
a woman, for it is an abomination".  Doesn't that just mean no vaginal
sex? :-)  No?  Sounds ridiculous?  Then doesn't that imply that anal sex
between men and women is considered normal in the OT, and that it's
only between men that's objectionable?  I follow the words above.
I've never done anything with a man that I haven't done with a woman.

But I'm just stirring.  I do agree that the OT abhors sodomy between
men above all else - after all, that paragon of virtue in Sodom would
rather hand over his daughters to be raped by a mob than let them
at a couple of men (who for all we know may have looked forward to the
mob... I mean, if Sodom had such a bad reputation, what were they doing
hanging around there anyway???)

: Don't argue with me, take it up with God if you don't like it.  I didn't

"I think for myself, and find it insulting that you suggest I follow
the party line" Yeah, right.

: write it, I just paraphrased it.  As for narrow and bigoted - hardly.
: Narrow maybe, but if you call it narrow, you're just agreeing with what the
: New Testament says about the way to Heaven.  It's narrow all right.:-)

I've already asked you what your personal rules are about interpreting
the bible.  You've said in private mail that you take *all* of it, modulo
some sensible caveats about translation from the Greek.

You've said you take imperatives from God's lips directly to the pens
of old Hebrew scribes unequivocally.

So tell me Ruth, do you cover your head in Church?

Do you refuse to wear garments woven from two kinds of cloths?

You've said in mail that all sex outside marriage is sinful.  I hope
you haven't *ever* masturbated.  No shades of grey allowed, remember.

Have you ever spoken aloud in the congregation? That's a big no-no too.

There are *dozens* of Gods Instructions in the OT that Christians ignore
nowadays because they don't consider them "appropriate to the times". If
you *are* going to pick and choose, try *thinking* about it rather than
taking the word of God straight from Pat Robertson's lips.  If you're
*not* going to pick and choose...

      "Give to everyone that asketh thee; and from him that
      taketh away thy goods ask not again." Luke 6:30

      "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would
      borrow of thee turn not thou away." Matt.  5:42

      "But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend
      never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and
      ye shall be Sons of the Most High: for he is kind
      toward the unthankful and evil."  Luke 6:35

Care to send me all your money, Ruth?  Moral absolutes, remember.  New
Testament, straight from the Lips of God.

I asked you what *Jesus* has to say about homosexuality.  Nothing. The
closest you could find was about marriage, right?  To which you added
that since men can't marry, and sex outside marriage is sinful, then
sex between men must always be sinful.  A brilliant leap of logic.
It didn't occur to you that the Christian viewpoint *should* be to legalise
marriage between men?

Hell, queers have *always* been here.  If it's such a big thing with the
Church, why the hell didn't Jesus speak out against it explicitly?  Maybe
it's something to do with references to "the Disciple that Jesus Loved" :-)
(Hmmm... disciple. Sort of implies discipline, doesn't it.  Got a Christian
View on BDSM Ruth?  One that isn't inconsistent with the biblical entreaty
not to beat your wife with a stick no wider than your thumb?)

Too damn right it's disgusting, Bayla.  People who think they're fighting
evil in God's Name are downright fucking dangerous.  Gypsies next, then
the Jews, right?  That *is* the prescribed order isn't it?  Hitler was a
Christian par excellance, and I don't see the leaders of the new wave
of fundie revivalism having any higher moral values.

In case you think this is just me getting on my high horse because someone
'pressed my buttons', just look at the title of this thread.  We're
discussing bigotry, prejudice, and oppression.  *My* people are under
fire from the State, and the State is being prodded by ever so decent
upstanding Christian people like Ruth, who in ones and twos are so
innocuous that even champions of the underdog like you, bayla, are
leaping to their defence.

OK. To try to defuse this flamewar, I'll be willing to concede that I'm
arguing against a whole movement and not Ruth in particular.  I really
would like to hear Ruth say she'd have voted against the Oregon or
Colorado discriminatory bills though.  It would make it a lot easier for me
to dissociate her from the provably bigoted movement she's a part of.

G
[Aside: Sara - does this count as 'boxing gloves'?]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU