Same sex public displays of affection at family events

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kirk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
what does the so-called highest princi-ple of the story got to do with it;s usefullness to discuss morals?

It’s in the OT I didn’t decide to put it there. Discuss it with the
Fathers
it’s an obvious and powerful example of what God thinks of a society obsessed with sexual immorality specific to men having sex with men. Made them inhospitable wink
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
it’s an obvious and powerful example of what God thinks of a society obsessed with sexual immorality specific to men having sex with men.
Click to expand...
Well this just shows you either haven’t read it or haven’t understood it. You think the sin was that the men want to rap* other men instead of women?!
Benadam said:
It’s in the OT I didn’t decide to put it there.
Click to expand...
Good so you keep to all of leviticus as well do you?
 
stupidisasstupiddoes said:
Does seeing a drunk person turn them alcoholic or seeing a cigarette make them a smoker.
Click to expand...
Growing up in an evironment where regular and heavy drinking and smoking are on show, particularly amongst family members, is likely to make the behaviours seem normal. It’s unlikely to lead the child to the opposite conclusion, until the influence of alcohol and smoke produces unpleasant effects, or the child otherwise learns.
 
Last edited:
yes. you go read it…see if it isn’t describing a town full of men obsessed with sex with other men. Read carefully why Lot’s married daughters yearn for offspring How all the men of the town rejected Lots daughters and wanted to molest the three men Lot had in his home’ .Can you read the story and miss that much?. This obsession made them inhospitable.

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater
 
I think the story is about a sickness…

You are the one thinking it is only about hospiality…you reduce the story to
you must offer strangers hospitality……and the sickness that caused it is obsolete?
 
Last edited:
No you just have a very fundamentalist reading of it that defies common sense. As if somehow these were good men who should have done the nobel thing and rap** lot’s daughters or that the only sin these men did was lust for men. Where in the world have you ever heard of a city where all the men turned gay and women couldn’t find a partner? Do you not understand the concept of metaphors.

I note from you silence that you don’t keep Leviticus and just cherry pick from the old testament for the things you can’t support from the new.
 
I think exposing children to social environments that include SS couples normalizes the behavior. I’m not saying I would do anything about that,none of my biz. But it will normalize the behavior in the child’s mind…a parent that doesn’t want that shouldn’t expose her child to that environment
 
stupidisasstupiddoes said:
As if somehow these were good men who should have done the nobel thing and rap** lot’s daughters or that the only sin these men did was lust for men.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you just called men that God rained hellfire on for their sin…Good…
 
Benadam said:
As if somehow these were good men who should have done the nobel thing and rap** lot’s daughters or that the only sin these men did was lust for men.

I can’t believe you just called men that God rained hellfire on for their sin…Good…
Click to expand...
If you wanted to highlight your inability to read English clearly then you did it with this statement.
 
You’re right I misread. may I ask? what sin was unforgiveable in this story?The only behavior you mentioned was that they didn’t want to satisfy their urge to rape with Lots daughters. I don’t understand why you claiming that somehow I thought they should rape someone if I’m saying that is their sin?"
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
You’re right I misread. may I ask? what sin was unforgiveable in this story?The only behavior you mentioned was that they didn’t want to satisfy the urge to rape with women. I don’t understand why you claiming that somehow I thought they should rape someone if I’m saying that is their sin?"
Click to expand...
The story is just an epitome of how bad a city can get. These men are evil to the core. The fact that the wanted to fornicate with men is really a side issue, if not an methphor, if not irrelevant.

Look at how the story builds:
  • Abraham notigiates with God that he only has to find 10 good men in the entire city to save it. Again how you ever seen a city that didn’t have 10 hetrosexual men in it?
  • The men of the city want to harm a guest. This is probably the most significant statement since the treatment of a guest is almost a universal cultural ethic.
  • the men are offered virgin daughters instead. Do you really think it’s noble to allow your daughters to get gang ra*****? The significance is that they are virgins, highly prized and yet even this does not satisify the mens wickedness.
  • the fact that they still want the men shows are thoroughly evil the men are. That Abraham couldn’t even find 10 good ones in the whole city.
It’s utterly ridiculous to suppose the whole city was gay or that the men did this because they were gay. You’ve got the cause and effect the wrong way round. They weren’t evil because they were gay. The homosexuality is there to epitomise their evil. Do all gays go around gang rap*** guests? How can you possibly support that conclusion. You’ve taken a side issue of the story and totally missed the moral of the story.
 
Basically if you don’t want your children to see sinful behaviour being normalised then you aren’t going to leave the house very much. Educate children to live in the world without being consumed by it.

I don’t believe half the comments are really concerned for the children. The children are just a pretex for a prejudice people have. Who are any of us to judge those with same sex attraction?
 
Last edited:
stupidisasstupiddoes said:
It’s utterly ridiculous to suppose the whole city was gay or that the men did this because they were gay. You’ve got the cause and effect the wrong way round. They weren’t evil because they were gay. The homosexuality is there to epitomise their evil. Do all gays go around gang rap*** guests? How can you possibly support that conclusion. You’ve taken a side issue of the story and totally missed the moral of the story.
Click to expand...
Utterly ridiculous to think the whole town was gay?
it wasn’t all the men in Sodom? Please read from the Sacred text.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
Click to expand...
stupidisasstupiddoes said:
the men are offered virgin daughters instead. Do you really think it’s noble to allow your daughters to get gang ra*****? The significance is that are virgins, highly prized and yet even this does not satisify
Click to expand...
Lots daughters had husbands. They were there. their wives were virgins…what does that say about their husbands? The men were there with the intent to rape. They didn’t want to satisfy the urge with youg virgin women. Just incidental to the story you say?
I am astounded. This is a watered down fit to order version of the story that refuses to acknowledgte the obvious. The sin these people were obsessed with has nothing to do with why God wiped them out…lol Incidental?..yeeahh

Look I’m familiar with this analysis. I was hoping that my hints would keep from thinking I wasn’t

It’s filtered to suit a purpose and I’m fine with that> But you’re using it as if was the stories meaning in totality and treating any other meaning as false. That’s ignorant or disingenuous.

Please read the excerpt of the story and if you still believe it wasn’t the whole town or that same sex attraction wasn’t the cause of their sin,. for the sake of the thread lets just drop it.
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
Please read the excerpt of the story and if you still believe it wasn’t the whole town or that same sex attraction wasn’t the cause of their sin,. for the sake of the thread lets just drop it.
Click to expand...
Let’s stop then. Honestly i think people who want to take a fundamentalist interpretation of the old testament should be Jewish, not Catholic but that’s just my opinion.
 
Gen.19 -14

I do have to make a correction.I made a wrong assumption. They were called Sons in laws. But,the daughters being virgins isn’t because their husbands had same sex attraction. Because Lot tells the men outside “they were to marry my daughters” . I lumped them in with the rest of the men in town when that isn’t plain. The angels told Lot to get his wife and daughter to lead them out of the city. God didn’t include them in this particular plan of salvation. Lot did though. And told them to leave the city. They thought it a joke. So, that only implies that their indifference to the sin that doomed the town made them complicit. They did suffer the same punishment as the rest of the town.

Thank you FiveLinden for the correction. You helped me see a lesson in the story I didn’t see before.
 
Last edited:
Just one more thing. Just to prove that the Sacred Scriptures don’t agree with you about the sin of Sodom. Also I don’t appreciate a discussion peppered with condescension and insults. I shouldn’t be Catholic?
Jude 1-7
7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust,[h] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1-10

But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top