If you read the actual phrases in the bible talking about the incident in question – both the men AND women were threatening to RAPE the angels serving as guests Lot’s household. Recall also that hospitality was (and to a large part still IS) an almost sacred concept in that part of the world. A person’s security is the responsibility of the host, even if the guest is one’s mortal enemy.

In other words, there is as much evidence in the Bible that God is against the RAPE of men as anything else from that story. Ignoring, of course, that Lot had sex with his daughters (no Godly or man-initiated repercussions), that rape is OK so long as one marries the woman (Deuteronomy), and that Jesus only ever used Sodom & Gomorrah as examples of ‘inhospitality’ (fancy that!). Every mention of homosexuality &/or sodomy and it being a sin in the New Testament is from people that were NOT Jesus.

But I will no longer pursue this debate here. This is a blog more about computers and “general” social issues. We are delving into Biblical interpretation (which I have shown to be less “fixed” than you imply). As I have already mentioned though – there is no convincing people who have “strong faith”, because you already fully embrace the unprovable. The last word is yours…

Like I said, *practising* homosexuality is a sin, i.e. the act of homosexuality is a sin.

The definition of sodomy, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy) and Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy), is slightly more that just anal sex, as they both include oral sex. For a biblical quote you could add the destruction of Sodom which happens just after the quote mentioned in the Merriam-Webster quote or Romans 1:26-27, which I’ve quoted further below from the King James Version only because it pre-dates 1946, although I’m guessing its not the 1611 version, otherwise it would probably be harder to read.

“Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1–11
Date: 13th century
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal”
Merriam-Webster

“26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)

@Steve “Of course, I think all religion was written down, rewritten, edited and translated by human beings anyway and thus any absolutes in it are inherently challengeable”

Having old copies of the Bible, like Codex Sinaiticus (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/) and others, makes this argument hard.

Like the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of the New Testament leading them to forbid blood transfusions, the fact that god forbade homosexuality (rather than just ‘bum-sex’) is an interpretation man has overlayed on the historical text. It may or may not be right, but the original text is vague enough to claim lee-way.

That, of course, is not the argument of this blog nor one I am going to win against someone with a rock-solid “faith” (which, by definition, is a belief in things unseen or unprovable). However, stating that there is definite proof that homosexuals are anathema in “God’s sight” or similar is far from given when reading the Bible in the original language. Generations of men have interpreted and translated the Bible with more flexibility than would be acceptable in, say, a court of law.

It becomes discrimination when they refuse to hire a gay gardener, cleaner etc regardless of whether it has any fundamental bearing at all on the job, as B. Tolputt says – which IS what the equality law addresses. What the Pope is saying is that they should be exempt en masse from equality laws, which is not the same thing at all. He’s justifying broad-brush discrimination because of a single kind of potential conflict (which is not that likely IMO – a gay Christian has far more attractive places to go than the Catholic church), and that doesn’t wash with most people who live in the 21st rather than 16th century.

Of course, I think all religion was written down, rewritten, edited and translated by human beings anyway and thus any absolutes in it are inherently challengeable – even if you accept a divine original source (which I don’t), that’s a lot of potential conversion error. But that I know is a lost argument.

Okay, so obviously we not going to agree on the source, but, relating to the interpretation part, its not possible to say that people are misinterpreting that the Bible says that *practising* homosexuality is sin, as every time its mentioned in the Bible, its always explicitly labelled as a sin.

“Ok, but realistically why would someone who is unilaterally condemned out of hand by a group because of their ‘teachings’ want to join them anyway?”

Some people are in denial that the Bible condemns practising homosexuality and so want to be made leaders. In fact some practising homosexuals have been made leaders in churches where people don’t follow the Bible or Jesus, but still wan’t to be call Christian. Therefore the government could legally force churches who follow the Bible and Jesus to be hypocritical.

I’d hate to disagree. Religion is just politics with “God” as a stick to wield over the governed. The election of the Pope is a good example… like other “modern democracies”, you need to put in the hard yards sucking up to the people higher in the hierarchy so they will “allow” you to govern them.

I haven’t found a single evidence that being gay is ‘sinful’ – to the contrary, actually: it seemed to be more accepted 2000 years ago than it is today. In Rome it was even considered a more honourable love than that between woman and man.
Politics and Religion doesn’t mix. My enlightenment is as good as your enlightenment.
Poo to the Pope. I prefer to leave the judgement to God himself.
Statements like that must be bad news for lots of people in the Catholic church – I am sure they are cringing.

(hmm, my captcha for this comnment: “the shroud”)

Only an imbecile would vote for a person they believe is going to undermine their strongly held beliefs and the Catholic Church has alot of strongly held beliefs that draw ire from those against persecution of their fellow man. In other words, the Pope is in his position because he is the leader the upper levels of the Catholic Hierarchy would prefer to follow. Like political parties, this doesn’t mean that all Catholics share his beliefs, but enough of them at least accept his views as “reasonable” or they would have left (the Pope is infallible according to Catholic doctrine).

Personally, I think the man would be considered a right-wing whacko were it not for his religious position. He has said quite a few things now that would mark him as a person to ignore in the media were it not for his religious/political position. Compared to the previous pontiff, the man is a hot-bed of intolerance.

As for the laws, it only means churches cannot discriminate, in employment matters, on homosexuality alone. In other words, they should hire gay gardeners if they are better qualified than other applicants. Or, more importantly, they cannot really ask sexual orientation as a part of the employment process as it is irrelevant.

As for the bull-dust about hiring gay priests… if their religion allows for a person to be a practising homosexual and be a priest, then it follows that the religion is not against him being employed as a priest. If the religion doesn’t allow practising homosexual priests, then there is nothing to worry about because the employment condition “must be a priest” cannot be met by a practising homosexual. This is a doctrinal issue (complicated by the infallibility of previous Popes), not a legal one.

@Jason: ah, this probably identifies the fundamental and irreconcilable difference of outlook between us which explains a lot: I view religeon as man-made, a codified version of what certain members of society think & believe at a given point in time (after all, not all the major religeons in the world can be right all at once). In that mindset, condemning a group of people for their sexuality is using a historical point of view to excuse your own intolerance. BUT, of course those of the faith believe those principles come from a divine source, trickling down to society as immutable, absolute principles. We’re not going to agree on that, obviously. But it no doubt underpins why I find the church’s position impossible to relate to.

Thanks for the debate!