From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:39:36 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <94737@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11903@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <94509@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ##The Greek words suggest not "homosexual" but
# ##"effeminate" or "morally weak or soft" or "cowardly."
# 
# #The word in question is "arsenkoitai," [sic] which has the English
# #cognates "arse" and "coitus."
# 
# Not true at all!!! Can I say that any more strongly???
# 
# The word "arsenokoitai" is GREEK. "Arseno-" is a stem which means
# "male", and has nothing to do with the British colloquialism "arse"
# referring to the hind quarters. "Koitai" literally means "fuckers",

According the dictionary on my desk, "ass" comes from Old English
"ears", akin to Greek "orrhos", Hittite "arras" and Old Iranian
"err", for tail.  The derivation is clearly from a common root
in Indo-European.  Perhaps you need to go look up what "cognate"
means.

# and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Latin "coitus", which comes
# from the stem "co-", "com-" etc ("together") and "itus" ("a going"),
# from the verb "ire" ("to go"). It's just coincidence that the Greek
# word for those who engage in active intercourse resembles the Latin
# (and subsequently English) words for intercourse.

I can't find in my office anything that immediately disproves
your claim, but you've already demonstrated your lack of
understanding of this subject above.

# #Exactly what that word means is debatable, as I made clear above.
# 
# True. Boswell said exactly that, noting that colloquialism in the Greek
# of that era allowed for "arsenokoitai" to mean either "fuckers of men"
# or "fuckers who are male", hence the references to male (temple) prosti-
# tution.
# 
# #But the two examples of its usage in roughly contemporary Greek indicate
# #either homosexual prostitute, or pederast.
# 
# True, since it was not culturally acceptable for two completely grown
# men to engage in sexual relations with each other. So then is not the
# word condemning prostitution and child abuse, and not our modern concept
# of homosexuality?
    
As I said, there are two examples of its usage in roughly contemporary
Greek -- hence there is uncertainty.  There may have been other
usages as well -- and because of the loss of so many classical
Greek manuscripts, we don't know.  Neither one of those usages found
do much for your cause, especially in light of the clear-cut hostility
to homosexuality in the Old Testament, a culture that powerfully
influenced the early Church.

# #Now here's an example of Brian Kane's lack of honesty.  Romans
# #1:26-27 is NOT limited to acts of prostitution, and includes
# #homosexuality along with idolatry and other actions clearly
# #prohibited.  He can't directly address this passage because it
# #is so utterly unambiguous, so he just lies.
# 
# No, you apparently AGREE with me that the word translated as "homosexual"
# should either read "prostitute" or "pederast".

No, I agree with you that the phrase "homosexual offender" which
is used in some translations for "arsenokoitai" is ambiguous.
Romans 1:26-27 is not at all ambiguous, and it doesn't use that
word.

# ##There seems to be little point in arguing with people who believe
# ##the earth was created in 4,004 B.C.E.; this doesn't mean that you
# 
# #Completely agree.  Fortunately, the two issues are not connected,
# #and many Christians recognize that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion
# #years old, and still recognize that the Bible teaches that homosexuality
# #is wrong.
# 
# The issue is clearly whether to consider Scriptural language literally,
# or figuratively. At the very least you have to take into account the
# differences in culture and language spanning the last 3 thousand years.
# We now have enough evidence to know that the chronologies outlined in
# the OT cannot possibly be literal. So the Word of God is figurative?

If it's figurative, maybe the commandment about murder needs to be
reinterpreted.  Maybe it only means it's wrong to murder people you
don't like. Maybe it only means it's wrong to murder straight people.
Maybe the Sermon on the Mount should be reinterpreted to support
genocide?  Do you see some problems with this approach?  You are
better off to abandon it completely, rather than try to justify
conveniently scrapping moral teachings because they get in the
way of your immediate gratification.

# ###Which parts don't support my case?  Homosexuality is no WORSE of
# ###a sin than adultery, or murder, or hatred, but it is clearly a
# ###sin.  There are no verses that illustrate homosexual relationships
# ###in a positive light.
# 
# ##Remember:  Jesus himself never married nor had children!  Other
# ##parts of the Bible simply can't be forced into the "family values"
# ##obsession of the Fundamentalists, for example:
# 
# ##The Book of Ruth sensitively portrays bonding and devotion
# ##between two women.  Also don't miss Book of Judith for a surprising
# 
# #I have strong emotional bonds and devotion with a few men as well.
# #That doesn't make me a homosexual.  There is nothing in Ruth that
# #implies homosexuality.
# 
# Nothing that precludes it either.

Except that the culture in question utterly rejected homosexuality.

# ##overturning of male/female roles:  Judith sneaks into the enemy
# ##camps, cuts off the head of Holofernes, the leader of the enemy
# ##army, returns and receives a hero's welcome, and then lives out the
# ##remainder of her days with her maidservants, rejecting all male
# ##suitors!
# 
# #What does this "male/female roles" issue have to do with homosexuality?
# 
# Aside from the fact that the OT is a careful documentation of the subjection
# of women, and that homosexuality was considered to be a threat to the
# standard power structure where men dominated women, nothing :) :)

Actually, compared to a lot of cultures of that time (and even today),
it's a giant step up, much as the Koran raised the status of women
to second-class.

# And what do you think "lives out the remainder of her days with her maid-
# servants, rejecting all male suitors" implies?

Abstinence?  It seems to be easIER for women than for men.

# ##The "friendship" between David and Jonathan.  The relevant
# ##passages:  1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:3-4, and especially, 20:41 and 2
# ##Samuel 1:25-26, quoted here:  "And as soon as the lad had gone,
# ##David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the
# ##ground, and bowed three times; and *they* (David and Jonathan)
# ##KISSED ONE ANOTHER, and wept with another, until David recovered
# ##himself"  (1 Sam. 20:41 New International Version).  Note:  It's
# ##really amusing to see the Fundamentalists try to dismiss the obvious
# ##passion in this episode!
# 
# #Men kiss men all the time in the Middle East today.  That doesn't
# #make them homosexuals.
# 
# True, it makes them less uptight than us.

Sure.  It doesn't make them homosexuals, though.  You've effectively
admitted that your argument is defective on this one.

# ##"(David speaks:)  'Jonathan lies slain... I am distressed for
# ##you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; YOUR
# ##LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN'"  (Emphasis
# ##added by editor.)  (2 Sam 1:25-26, New International Version).
# 
# #It never ceases to amaze me how homosexuals, because their entire
# #lives are wrapped up in their crotch, can't understand that there
# #are forms of love that are not sexual in nature.
# 
# We understand that alright. You think that homosexuality cannot be
# more than just sexual love. You have the problem. And what makes you
# think the converse is not possible? That two men who love each other
# deeply will not have sex with each other?
# 
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

I discount the idea of homosexuality being more than just sex
because I read soc.motss, and it's clear that at least with gay
men, there's nothing more than animal sex involved.  (Excuse
me, I'm insulting animals -- I've never seen an animal need 
leather, whips, or instruments of bondage to enjoy sex.  Animals
are also MUCH less promiscuous than soc.motss members).

It's also clear from looking at who is dying of AIDS in this
country that promiscuity is a fundamental part of being homosexual.
How much love can develop when the relationship takes place
in five hurried minutes in a gay bar restroom?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42324 alt.politics.elections:11733 alt.politics.clinton:3230 alt.politics.bush:3167