...why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?
...why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?
Homosexuality is only the straw that broke the camel's back. Not the cause... It was a cause. Not the cause however.
The text starts in Genesis 18.20-19.29.
The main verse within there is in 18.20-21 and 19.4-8.
Verse four of chapter 19 stats "But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together."
Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's translation of the Septuagint also affirms this:
'But before they went to sleep, the men of the city, the Sodomites, compassed the house, both young and old, all the people together."
It seems to me to suggest that the passage in question, concerning what follows, is quite clear that this is not just a minor group of the city. It is not some sort of straw that broke the camel's back. It is the "men" of the city, "young and old, all the people together." The sin they wanted to commit to the men under Lot's care was homosexual rape. Of course, the Hebrew word for Sodom, I believe is "scorched." I can look it up on the libronix library. But I feel the context of the passage demonstrates not only the act of rape, but specifically of homosexuality. What follows is Lot trying to persuade the men to rape his daughters rather than the men. But they were insistent in raping the men--thus the connection for everyone to see where we got the word Sodomy from, even though the root "Sodom" may in Hebrew just connotate the Lord's destruction of that city.
Just to demonstrate its usefulness to ActRaiser, I wanted to add some words from the OED.
("sQd@mI) Forms: 3–5 sodomye (5 zodomye), 4, 6–7 -ie, 6 -i, 5– sodomy. [a. OF. (also mod.F.) sodomie: see Sodom and -y.]
1. An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.
1297 R. Glouc. (Rolls) 9038 Mid þe vile sunne of sodomye yproued hii were echon. 1387 Trevisa Higden (Rolls) III. 5 Mempricius+forsook his wyf at þe laste, and vsede sodomye as a schrewe schulde. c1440 Jacob's Well 162 Þe xiiij. fote depth is sodomye, þat is, synne aŠens kynde. 1536–40 Pilgr. Tale 407 The prophet+which knew before of there sodomi. 1577 tr. Bullinger's Decades (1592) 236 The abhominable sinne of Sodomie+is plainly forbidden. 1650 Bulwer Anthropomet. 198 Wicked Sodomy, a sin so hateful to Nature it self that she abhors it. 1727 Swift Poisoning E. Curll Wks. 1755 III. i. 151 Heaven pardon me for publishing the Trials of sodomy. 1782 J. Brown Nat. & Revealed Relig. i. i. 23 Polygamy must occasion+sodomy, bestiality, or the like. 1864 tr. Caspar's Forensic Med. III. 336 It is no secret that the unnatural connection of men with animals, sodomy in the restricted sense of the word, still sneaks about. 1395 Purvey Remonstr. (1851) 7 Symonie is gostli sodomie and eresie.
1395 1577 1782
1297 1387 c1440 1536–40 1650 1727 1864
2. An act or instance of this.
1593 G. Harvey Pierce's Super. Wks. (Grosart) II. 271 Agrippa detesteth his monstrous veneries, and execrable Sodomies. 1621 Burton Anat. Mel. i. iii. ii. iv. (1651) 205 Those rapes,+Sodomies, buggeries of Monkes and Friers.
("sQd@m) [The name of the early city beside the Dead Sea, the wickedness and destruction of which are recorded in Gen. xviii-xix.
The Hebrew form of the name is S'dZm; the Sept. has R¾dola, the Vulg. Sodoma, neut. pl. and fem. sing.]
1. An extremely wicked or corrupt place. Freq. coupled with Gomorrah (see Gomorr(h)ean a. and n.), the name of the other of the two wicked cities of the plain in Gen. xviii–xix.
1649 C. Walker Relat. & Obs. ii. 257 To the prejudice of our other New States-men, and their New erected Sodomes and Spintries at the Mulbury-garden at S. James's. a1704 T. Brown Walk r. London, A Tavern Wks. 1709 III. iii. 3 A Tavern is a little Sodom, where as many Vices are daily practic'd, as ever were known in the great one. 1782 J. Brown Nat. & Revealed Relig. v. iv. 461 How could he dwell in a dead carcase, a Sodom of filthiness? 1862 Queen Victoria Let. 7 June in R. Fulford Dearest Mama (1968) 67 It was intended he should come home through Paris stopping only a day in order to have got over his visit to that Sodom and Gomorrah. 1864 Trollope Can you forgive Her? I. xxiii. 179, I always regarded the States as a Sodom and Gomorrah, prospering in wickedness. 1899 Westm. Gaz. 11 Sept. 8/1 Two, even in this military Sodom, had the courage to proclaim Dreyfus innocent. 1972 I. Hamilton Thrill Machine xv. 63 It wasn't exactly Sodom and Gomorrah—the ladies kept their clothes on. 1974 Listener 24 Jan. 121/3 Heliogabalus+reduced Rome to a kind of post-Christian Sodom and Gomorrah.
1782 1864 1974
1649 a1704 1862 1972
2. Sodom apple. a. Apple of Sodom (see apple n. 3). So †Sodom-fruit. Also U.S., the horse-nettle, Solanum carolinense.
1615 R. Brathwait Strappado (1878) 48 See painted Sodom~apples faire to th' eye, But being tutcht they perish instantly. 1654 Whitlock Zootomia 237 They are Sodome Apples, enduring the Eye, not the Touch. 1706 in Phillips (ed. Kersey). [1736 J. Bancks Young's Last Day 22 Through life we chase, with fond pursuit, What mocks our hope, like Sodom's fruit.] 1738 M. Green Spleen 33 And Sodom-fruit our pains deceives. 1855 Mrs. Gaskell North & S. iv, The mocking way in which over-fond wishes are too often fulfilled—Sodom apples as they are. 1905 W. J. Rolfe Shaks. Sonn. 19 The ashes to which the Sodom-apples of illicit love are turned in the end.
1615 1706 1855 1905
†b. A variety of cider-apple. Obs.
1676 Worlidge Cyder (1691) 212 The Sodome-apple or Bloudy pippin is a fruit of more than ordinary dark colour.
3. Sodom egg-plant (see quot. and cf. 2a).
1842 Penny Cycl. XXII. 196/1 Solanum Sodomeum, Sodom egg-plant, or apple of Sodom.
MLA format is as follows
"Sodom." The Oxford English Dictionary. CD-ROM. V3.1, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. 2004.
btw, you could probably shorten Oxford University Press to just OUP. It might also be eliminated as demonstrated in the next citation.
I find that MLA citations frequently change the order in different books. I can see using the twelfth edition of Harbrace College Handbook various differences from Joseph Gibaldi's "MLA handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 5th edition." I mean how many editions does it take to get it right the first time?
If you find the OED in the college library, the MLA will be like the following:
"sodomy." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.
One other thing, there is an online version of the OED that most universities and colleges may offer if not copies of the OED CD-ROM.
Since you are thinking about an English major, try to use this dictionary over any other preference. It is the most scholarly.
Last edited by Columcille; 03-27-2009 at 09:46 AM. Reason: Oxford English Dictionary entries.
Ezekiel 16:48-50, 53-54As I see it, the "sin of Sodom" discussion is like Jesus' analogy of the speck vs. beam - if I point in condemnation at "them", I have to deal with my own issues of being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned".
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen...
However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort.
God’s seal is truth.
Bergant, Dianne ; Karris, Robert J.: The Collegeville Bible Commentary : Based on the New American Bible With Revised New Testament. Collegeville, Minn. : Liturgical Press, 1989, S. 545
The use of Sodom in this passage is meant to express sever distaste for the present condition from which Jerusalem faces in the days of Ezekiel. It is, like most prophetic utterances, both a condemnation of sin and also one of future hope. How, I ask you, is Sodom restored if it was completely laid waste? It is purely a metaphor as verse 50 demonstrates.
50 Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them.
(Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees ; Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops ; United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board: The New American Bible : Translated from the Original Languages With Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources and the Revised New Testament. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1996, c1986, S. Eze 16:500
Last edited by Columcille; 03-29-2009 at 06:43 PM. Reason: Added verse 50.
49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it." NASB
I was wondering if someone would find these verses. The average guy in the pew (especially west bourough baptist) beleives that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah soley because of their homosexuality. These verses God elaborates on their whole condition. First God points out all of the riches that they had even though they were arrogant and due to the combonation of arrogance and abundant food and careless ease God points out their sin of ommission of not helping the poor and needy. This resulted their being haughty (distainful) of the poor and proceeded to do "detestable" things in their careless ease.
God seems to mention the detestable things as the straw that broke the camels back as it were - not the primary cause. So it is I believe with homosexuals who genuinely seek first the kingdom of God. Homosexuality may not be the main issue in a guys life. Just like being arrogant towards the poor may be the first concern. The image of the Pharisees comes to mind dropping in their spare gold gobblets in the offering with fanfare while the widow's mite was valued far more. The two men praying before God, the religious ruler who thanked God the he was not like this sinner and the sinner was beating his chest saying "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner". Jesus said he went home justified in the eyes of God.
Seek the LORD,All you humble of the earth who have carried out His ordinances; Seek righteousness, seek humility Perhaps you will be hidden in the day of the LORD'S anger.
Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
1 Peter 5:5
You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.
At any rate these are some of the current thoughts I have on the subject by means it is not comprehensive nor set in stone.
Last edited by MacG; 03-29-2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason: Fat fingers sent it too soon...
It is indeed a metaphor - just as when Jesus said roughly the same thing as Ezekiel here:How, I ask you, is Sodom restored if it was completely laid waste? It is purely a metaphor as verse 50 demonstrates.
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
God’s seal is truth.
Not as used by Jesus and Ezekiel.and the use of Sodom as a metaphor by both Jesus and Ezekiel does not change the story for your benefit. Homosexuality is still condemned.
God’s seal is truth.
I want to hear how the Law of Moses to kill homosexual only applies to Kings or rulers again, especially when the Law was written before Israel had any rulers, with the exception Moses when the law was written. Please, I would love to hear from any writings of your "Tradition."
- Did I say the Torah only applied to "kings or rulers"? If so, where? I don't know what you're talking about.
- Am I interpreting your words above correctly that you think homosexuals today should be killed?
Yes, I know I've got to get back to the Quadrilateral thread. I'm working on it. My next installment will be on Scripture - it's going to turn into a pretty epic post, I think, so forgive me for taking so long.Please, I would love to hear from any writings of your "Tradition."
God’s seal is truth.
God’s seal is truth.
It seems that God said that they were rich oppressve AND did detestable things. Do you suppose that He would tolerated them longer if they were either/or and not both?
Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. I am the LORD.
1 "None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.
You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her.
You shall not have intercourse with your father's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere.
You shall not have intercourse with your son's daughter or with your daughter's daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family.
You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father's wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister.
You shall not have intercourse with your father's sister, since she is your father's relative.
You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister, since she is your mother's relative.
You shall not disgrace your father's brother by being intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt.
You shall not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, and therefore you shall not disgrace her.
2 You shall not have intercourse with your brother's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her.
While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife.
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.
You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor's wife, defiling yourself with her.
3 You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.
"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.
Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.
I gave the longer list for the purpose to show its application. It seems clear to me that verse 13 in Chapter 20 is a willful act and not one of rape.
I'm suddenly feeling that we're having the wrong conversation altogether. If I'm interpreting your words correctly here, you believe that homosexuality today should be punishable by the death penalty. Please, please, please, correct me if I'm mistaken.
If you don't believe that gay men and lesbians are en***led to the right to life, I really don't know what to say, but I don't think I'll be able to engage your Scriptural arguments any further. I only hope I'm mis-reading your words.
God’s seal is truth.
I believe that God's theocracy dictated the death penalty, in fact, I don't have to believe, I know it as biblical fact!
The theocracy of God demonstrates the heavy burden that the law places on the individual by revealing what sin is. The working of the law were external observances, when it is really meant for inward observances. So the Christian, by seeing that homosexual acts are do not belong in God's theocratic system also know that the theocracy of God as it moves and is applied to the spiritual kingdom of God applies to the Christian. The theocracy moved from the State to the innerperson. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be a part of the Christian lifestyle.
I understand that; I think it's a valid approach to Christian morality; I acknowledge that it has been the majority opinion through the years of Christian history; I recognize (and support, even!) the right for Christian communities to determine acceptable moral standards for adherents of those communities. As you said, "the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law..."However, it was God's covenant with Israel to have a nation of people who would love God and be a moral nation based on the same trust that Abraham had with his God. As such, the law is not done away with. When Christ fulfilled the Law, the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law such as refraining from homosexual acts. So if you claim to be a Christian, you cannot claim as a person filled with same-sex attraction that God sanctions the acts as pure and wholesome for conditions that are clearly not present in the Law as set by God to Moses. So far, I seem to get a sense that ActRaiser agrees with this assessment, though I think his idea of loosing or gaining reward is a borderline excuse for some to continue living in licentiousness. Opps, I sinned again... I'll just loose a reward--almost similiar to some cafeteria Catholics who say, its no problem, I'll just go to the priest and have my sins absolved... without ever really repenting of their sins or recanting their support of such immoral evil acts as abortion, euthenasia, etc..
My question specifically had to do not with "the people of Christ", but with everybody else. That's why I was referring to modern law and government.
Can't you make a distinction between modern law and spiritual law? Between the "theocracy of the heart" that you believe applies to Christians and the secular rule of law established in modern liberal democracies? Between sinful behavior (as defined by the community) being condemned within the Church itself, and enacting civil/criminal punishments on those outside the moral-religious authority of the Church community?
There's an argument to be had about the civil rights afforded to gay and lesbian people in wider society - which is where I'll be diverted every time you start talking about criminal penalties, e.g., the death penalty, outside the very limited and specific discussion of the role of Mosaic Law.
The argument about the role (if any) homosexual people are to play in the Church is a completely separate argument. That's the argument I'd like to have - though I understand and respect that some expressions of the Church universal may well never reach agreement on this - but it's going to get sidetracked and derailed if we can't even come to a baseline of agreement wherein gay people are allowed to exist.
God’s seal is truth.
As far as politics is concerned, Christians should be active in their government because we are also a part of the people being governed. As such, prioritizing moral issues in electing officials to office should be as close to the Christian's own moral compass. This is left to the individual, but as a rule, the Church has stated that knowingly supporting the candidate specifically because they are prochoice, proethenasia, or pro-homosexual is sinful. For people like Trinity, up in Canada, most candidates that run are not pro-life; so he has to weigh in the candidate's moral compass to be the most favorable to Christian ethics.
As far as the Mosiac Law, God did establish it for the purpose of his people being a moral people, so the death penalty established by God shows the severity and gravity he has for such acts in his kingdom. If you are a professing Christian, you should at least understand that homosexual acts are not reasonable in a genuine relationship with God.
So as far as your questions are concerned...(1) making a distinction between modern law and spiritual law.... (A) the distinction already exists within the confines of the definitions. The moral laws existing in both establishments with Man on most instances agreeing with the spiritual laws, but in many cases violating and harming our society because it fails to listen to God.
(2) I believe that the number of books by philosophers of old have attempted to establish an ideal form of government. As many of our forefathers, framers of our cons***ution, the Judeo-Christian ethic was an important aspect in legislating laws that correspond to that moral ethic. George Washington stated the following in his Inaugural Address the following:
I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
I believe therefore that the spiritual law, which in Christ's kingdom is perfect peace, is incorporated into modern law, that the "smiles of Heaven" will bring with it the 'public prosperity." (3)This should be both applied in a Christian grassroots revival in bringing more people to Christ as simultaniously working in the government for legislative change. But as things exist asdf, the errosion of morality and decay is already moving in your favor. As such, I believe I answered your third question in this paragraph. Just one more retort. All kingdoms are going to fail, so do not put much weight into modern laws, especially if they violate God's approval.
Thankfully, none of these "spiritual laws" that the Catholic Church has every right to impose on her members is enshrined in civil law.
We've been through this before, and I still don't buy it.The sacrament of marriage is sanctioned by God between husband and wife. This extends to the very reason of marriage which is to establish a family to raise children (whether biological or adopted).
All very easy for you to claim that discrimination doesn't exist. It's like an Alabamian flying a Confederate flag claiming that racism is over, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The fact remains that there are 1138 federal statutory provisions of rights which heterosexual couples have that gay and lesbian couples do not. Including:Homosexuals already have enough civil rights as it extends to the working environment. I think that battle has already been fought, not only for the homosexual but for the AIDS patient, as I believe Tom Hank's demonstrated in the movie "Philadelphia," which I believe depicted Geoffrey Bower's life.
- The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
- The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
- The right to pe***ion for same-sex partners to immigrate.
- The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
- The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
- Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
- The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.
Very good. Sexual harassment, by a gay or a straight individual, should not be tolerated at the workplace.However, this does not guarantee that the homosexual will be fired should they initiate sexual harassment. I worked at a McDonalds in Tacoma and was being sexual harrassed by a homosexual in the presence of my coworkers who all said that they would have hit him in the face, whereas, I told the manager and he was fired.
I don't know whether to be glad that you recognize this or sad that you have to take pains to point it out.Not all homosexuals are like this, I've worked with other homosexuals and enjoyed the working atmosphere.
I agree, but I believe that a 'moral compass' should be beneficial to as many people as possible, not just the adherents of one religion (or one stream within a religion). "Of the people, by the people, for the people" should include all people and all faiths - and no faith.As far as politics is concerned, Christians should be active in their government because we are also a part of the people being governed. As such, prioritizing moral issues in electing officials to office should be as close to the Christian's own moral compass.
My thoughts are mixed on this. I understand that abortion and euthanasia are considered "life-and-death" issues, since it places a primacy of value on the "sanc***y of life", but homosexuality? What's so threatening about gay people receiving more civil equality that the Church has to draw a line in the sand against political candidates who support those policies?This is left to the individual, but as a rule, the Church has stated that knowingly supporting the candidate specifically because they are prochoice, proethenasia, or pro-homosexual is sinful.
And why wouldn't the Church make such harsh denouncements against those who would knowingly support torture, or unjust wars, or lack of concern for the poor?
Washington was a Deist. Part of the American Experiment was for Rationalism and not religious dogma to determine civil law. "The eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained" are decidedly not referring to the doctrines of Christianity - much less Roman Catholic Christianity!the Judeo-Christian ethic was an important aspect in legislating laws that correspond to that moral ethic. George Washington stated the following in his Inaugural Address the following:I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ame.../inaugtxt.html
Last edited by asdf; 03-31-2009 at 04:42 PM.
God’s seal is truth.
Asdf, your fellow homosexual lobbyists are doing their job for you. You should not be concerned with the far right or the moderate. I always thought that there will be a great falling away, even if it be gradually. You will get your way. I bet the antiChrist himself will approve of homosexuality in churches.
You have eight bullets.
1-4, 6. Total agreement. The homosexual should not have these rights. If anything, (1) you should encourage a medical living will. (2) Law needs to be changed here, I would recommend giving people an alloted frequency in which this could be used, and open a door for an individual to appeal for more time depending on circumstances. I would just word it so it includes people living under the same household, which would include dying friends, neighbors, as well as the precious homosexual who now reside under your roof. (3) resounding NO! this infringes on State rights. (4) I am absolutely against homosexuals adopting children. (6) Social Security was suppose to be temporary when it was first done. If anything, they need to privatize this because in all the government's wisdom, it cannot get any worse than if we ditch the whole thing and force people to make ammends with family and start relying on what our forefathers had before Social Security came along. Also, the military is staunchly conservative and always makes every effort to segregate male and female. There is no coop living condition, and frankly with public showers in boot camp... it is no place for homosexuals. Therefore, if they get veteran benefits, it will be based on the conditions set forth when they joined and started collecting. Meaning, tough luck, you knew when you were closeted homosexual that you would not be able to share these benefits with a homosexual partner.
5. they should have this right.
(5) This is a matter of fairness for any venture, whether it be domestic or not. Even in marriages, I see at times where there is considerable abuse of this type of law. I had a friend come home from Iraq and got divorced by his cheating wife--who incidently spend all the money and maxed out his credit with the general power of attorney given to her.
7. Get a will.
8. Encourage the free market, if a person wants to spend their hard earned money on insurance for someone else, they should get it. However, I wonder what the insurance companies know about the frequency of AIDS and its costability in the homosexual circles. Might be too risky to sustain profitability. The free market should be the answer to this and not the government.
Ps. As far as the other concerns. I think I have answered that in regards to priority. Abortion accounts for more lives taken than what has been sustained by the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan combined for any given year. The life of the unborn is clearly innocent, whereas it is harder to make a case in regards to an "unjust war." As a soldier that has been over in Iraq twice, possibly looking at a third time... the UCMJ is pretty harsh, and we are drilled in our briefings and training the rules of war, current TTPs in regards to Escalation Of Force, and Rules Of Engagement. Our enemies do not abide by such rules, that is one reason we are gaining success in Iraq. Al-Queda uses torture, threats, and even assasination of the people and their family members of whom they supposedly are helping against the wicked United States. I am against torture, and the uncomfort that some terrorists may feel in our care is better than handing them over to the Iraqi forces, who are not under the Genevia Convention, I might add, and will kill them. Better a living terrorist in our care whom may feel uncomfort than a dead one or one that will suffer real torture. A lot of these issues are real concerns, of which we should attempt to put a stop to, but it is still a matter of prioritizing them... and even if they are minor priority, it is easier to have discussion and change within whatever party is in power.
However, if you want to discuss this further... it has moved away from the story of Sodom... I think you should start a new thread.
The Letter of Jude, alone in all of the Bible, mentions any sexual sin, specifically, when referring to Sodom, (besides Genesis, of course) but he only speaks of their “going after strange flesh… [to]revile Angelic Majesties.” (verses 7 & 8) -- Not Human Men.
Nowhere in all of scripture (NOWHERE!) is “homosexuality” said to be the cause of their doom. The SIN/GUILT of Sodom is NOT homosexuality. The city's Sin is recorded (as posted by others above, quoting Ezekiel, and by extension Jesus in Matthew) and we err if we presume to know God’s revelation about something which He has NOT revealed.