"Michael" == Michael Siemon <mls@panix.com> writes:  Michael> The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is Michael> that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket Michael> equation of homosexual behavior and rape.  Since Christians Michael> citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have Michael> at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge Michael> that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.  and  Michael>  It is just Michael> as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a Michael> secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate Michael> homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the Michael> rape of God's messengers.  Let's review the Sodom and Gomorrah story briefly.  It states clearly that the visitors were angels.  But "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.  They called to Lot, `Where are the *men* who came to  you tonight?  Bring them out to us so that we can have sex  with them.' "   For the rest of the story the angels are referred to by the men of Sodom and by Lot as *men*.  Furthermore we know from Gen 18:20,21 that the Lord had already found Sodom guilty of grievous sin--before the angels visited the city.  It is clear that the grievous sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexual sex.  It appears that the men had become so inflamed in their lust that they had group orgies in the public square--which simply indicates  the extremity of their depravity.  It does not show that lesser  degrees of homosexuality are not sinful, as Michael would have us believe.  Ultimately our understanding of God's will for sexuality comes from the creation story--not solely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  He created us male and female, and instituted marriage as a relationship between one male and one female, "Therefore a man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh."  This marriage relationship is the only sexual relationship which God blesses and sanctions. He regulates and protects the marriage of man and woman, and even uses it as a picture of the relationship between himself and his church.  But we find not one word of blessing or regulation for a sexual relationship between  two men, or between two women.  Everything else that we find in the Bible about sexuality derives from or expresses God's will in instituting and blessing marriage.  Thus the Levitical code, which was given only to the Jews, forbade incest, homosexuality, bestiality; the Ten Commandments forbade adultery and the coveting of our neighbor's wife; other commandments forbade rape. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded as sexually immoral and perverse (Jude 7) because they abandoned and/or polluted the marriage relationship.  Thus also Paul regarded homosexuality as `unnatural', Romans 1:26,27--not because this was simply Paul's opinion, but because it was contrary to God's purpose in creating us male and female.    Michael> Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here Michael> and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they Michael> ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously Michael> have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL Michael> ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest Michael> charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can Michael> manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they Michael> suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss Michael> our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what Michael> it is.  Really, have you no better response to `slander' than more slander?