Why sodomy has been so banned by human specie?

[John Dibble]

that's consistent, not inconsistent.

Didn't say it was inconsistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that women bleed naturally every month makes it very arbitrary to separate them from society for a whole week. Furthermore, the fact that they bleed every month makes it not a big deal - it happens every month for crying out loud.

[Joe Republic]

And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

LOL

[President Mitt]

Sodomy is first of all is abomination against God,Romans 1:26-32.God made Adam and Eve,but not Adam and Steve,Eve and Susan.God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:1-29,because they were dominated by fags along doing other evil things that are described at Ezekiel.God gave moral laws to Moses in Leviticus 18:22 regarding gays and this law was not abolished by Jesus,but instead way approved through His Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-32.
Sodomy must be as a felony and must be punished by prison terms.

Guess What?!?

God Doesn't Exist!!!!!

[John Dibble]

And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

LOL

Absurd, isn't it? God designs woman a body that bleeds once a month, so somehow it's her fault and she needs to make an offering to atone for it.

[Scam of God]

Sorry, Verily, but you got it backwards - in many cases, it wasn't sodomy, per se, that was proscribed - it was being on the receiving end. Most Mediterranean cultures, for instance, saw no problem with being the top in homosex. And this attitude is still present in some Islamic societies, of all places.

If I were to advance a hypothetical explanation, it would be this: the earliest agrarian societies were more reliant on physically strong, heteronormative men, and hence being the passive partner in sex was seen as demeaning and submissive, which conflicted with the core necessary values of agrarian society. As cities developed and classes of people were formed totally unconnected to manual labor arose, however, this need to stigmatize passive gay sex diminished.

Moreover, even this rule-of-thumb hasn't always held true: it was especially common for temple prostitutes (particularly in the proto-Babylonian culture of the Near East and early Rome) to be men in drag, and this largely was not only tolerated, but actively encouraged.

[Verily]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much consensual sex in pre-agrarian societies as in post-agrarian ones. I'm not sure what you are basing your info on.

Plus your theory is too functionalist to my liking anyway.

"Agrarian" was a bad way of describing it. "Established" might be a better term, societes that had some level of culture--of, well, society--as we would understand it, as opposed to being animalistic. There are plenty of non-agrarian societies today that still have social norms. Obviously there have been no groups of humans lacking what we would consider social norms for a very long time, probably tens of millenia at least. (I'm thinking something of a parallel with other high primates here. Primatologists would probably rip my head off something around now. I'll stop the idle speculation.)

Meh. It is pretty functionalist, I'll admit. But it's no more functionalist than, "It's different, and people didn't like different, so they took out their frustration against those who participated in it."

[Scam of God]

Also: I've read before, I'm not entirely sure where, that most of the edicts in the Bible (in the Tanakh, at any rate) actually stem from the ancient Jewish competition with surrounding Near Eastern cultures. Because male passiveness in the form of temple prostitution was so common in these cultures, the early Israelites stigmatized it as part of a justification for their prosecutions of war against them. So most of the Old Testament prohibitions on sodomy ought to be read in a very specific context: that of an insular, tribal society trying to establish their values as against those of their rival neighboring civilizations.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much consensual sex in pre-agrarian societies as in post-agrarian ones. I'm not sure what you are basing your info on.

Plus your theory is too functionalist to my liking anyway.

"Agrarian" was a bad way of describing it. "Established" might be a better term, societes that had some level of culture--of, well, society--as we would understand it, as opposed to being animalistic. There are plenty of non-agrarian societies today that still have social norms. Obviously there have been no groups of humans lacking what we would consider social norms for a very long time, probably tens of millenia at least. (I'm thinking something of a parallel with other high primates here. Primatologists would probably rip my head off something around now. I'll stop the idle speculation.)

Meh. It is pretty functionalist, I'll admit. But it's no more functionalist than, "It's different, and people didn't like different, so they took out their frustration against those who participated in it."

"Animalistic" is complete human concept. Animals rarely act in "Animalistic" ways. Humans are one of very few species that can reproduce at any time of the year - sex obsessed compared to most creatures.

Anyway I'll go with what Al said (surprise!) fundamentally people hate sodomy because it's "disguisting" or "immoral" not because its against the interests of a supposed "society" (very few societies have a concept of society - so how can they create laws to protect society - especially ones which degenerate (or are created by?) emotional prejudice?).

[Scam of God]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much consensual sex in pre-agrarian societies as in post-agrarian ones. I'm not sure what you are basing your info on.

Plus your theory is too functionalist to my liking anyway.

"Agrarian" was a bad way of describing it. "Established" might be a better term, societes that had some level of culture--of, well, society--as we would understand it, as opposed to being animalistic. There are plenty of non-agrarian societies today that still have social norms. Obviously there have been no groups of humans lacking what we would consider social norms for a very long time, probably tens of millenia at least. (I'm thinking something of a parallel with other high primates here. Primatologists would probably rip my head off something around now. I'll stop the idle speculation.)

Meh. It is pretty functionalist, I'll admit. But it's no more functionalist than, "It's different, and people didn't like different, so they took out their frustration against those who participated in it."

"Animalistic" is complete human concept. Animals rarely act in "Animalistic" ways. Humans are one of very few species that can reproduce at any time of the year - sex obsessed compared to most creatures.

Anyway I'll go with what Al said (surprise!) fundamentally people hate sodomy because it's "disguisting" or "immoral" not because its against the interests of a supposed "society" (very few societies have a concept of society - so how can they create laws to protect society - especially ones which degenerate (or are created by?) emotional prejudice?).

And whither do those value-schemata come from, if not a top-down imposition by a society based upon the premise that its temporary needs are in fact eternal truths?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much consensual sex in pre-agrarian societies as in post-agrarian ones. I'm not sure what you are basing your info on.

Plus your theory is too functionalist to my liking anyway.

"Agrarian" was a bad way of describing it. "Established" might be a better term, societes that had some level of culture--of, well, society--as we would understand it, as opposed to being animalistic. There are plenty of non-agrarian societies today that still have social norms. Obviously there have been no groups of humans lacking what we would consider social norms for a very long time, probably tens of millenia at least. (I'm thinking something of a parallel with other high primates here. Primatologists would probably rip my head off something around now. I'll stop the idle speculation.)

Meh. It is pretty functionalist, I'll admit. But it's no more functionalist than, "It's different, and people didn't like different, so they took out their frustration against those who participated in it."

"Animalistic" is complete human concept. Animals rarely act in "Animalistic" ways. Humans are one of very few species that can reproduce at any time of the year - sex obsessed compared to most creatures.

Anyway I'll go with what Al said (surprise!) fundamentally people hate sodomy because it's "disguisting" or "immoral" not because its against the interests of a supposed "society" (very few societies have a concept of society - so how can they create laws to protect society - especially ones which degenerate (or are created by?) emotional prejudice?).

And whither do those value-schemata come from, if not a top-down imposition by a society based upon the premise that its temporary needs are in fact eternal truths?

I wouldn't disagree with that either (well not fully, though often ideas - and this was true of Early Christianity - spread to parts of the population first then to those in power). Anyway this was my earlier comment on "stoic-christian" morality. That is true at least for the west.

[opebo]

Hey, the climate seems to be at this (well at debates about this...) nowadays, so let's go further, why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs? Maybe cultures were more 'open' to this but globally, it seems it had been banned of a lot of cultures (or maybe I'm too ignorant, and it hasn't been that much banned outside of West).

Some ideas?

because God forbid it

You mean its only banned by the christians?  I thought other groups of intolerant superstitious also banned it.

[Joe Republic]

And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

LOL

Absurd, isn't it? God designs woman a body that bleeds once a month, so somehow it's her fault and she needs to make an offering to atone for it.

Ah, but you forget; the woman's monthly curse is a punishment for Eve being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple, even after the invisible man who had made her out of a rib had told her not to.  Or something.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

LOL

Absurd, isn't it? God designs woman a body that bleeds once a month, so somehow it's her fault and she needs to make an offering to atone for it.

Ah, but you forget; the woman's monthly curse is a punishment for Eve being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple, even after the invisible man who had made her out of a rib had told her not to.  Or something.

the bible does NOT say a woman's monthly period is a curse or is the result of Eve's sin or anyone's sin.

Do a word search on "blood" on an online bible.  You'll find that there is much symbolism involved.  That fact that women would go outside the camp during bleeding and then to come before God afterward holds great parallels to Christ's blood being shed outside the city gates and then his return to the Father afterward. 

Therefore, these laws are NOT arbitrary in any way.  The ceremonial requirements of the Law of Moses were meant to teach us something about Jesus Christ.

[Joe Republic]

the bible does NOT say a woman's monthly period is a curse or is the result of Eve's sin or anyone's sin.

Do a word search on "blood" on an online bible.  You'll find that there is much symbolism involved.  That fact that women would go outside the camp during bleeding and then to come before God afterward holds great parallels to Christ's blood being shed outside the city gates and then his return to the Father afterward. 

Therefore, these laws are NOT arbitrary in any way.  The ceremonial requirements of the Law of Moses were meant to teach us something about Jesus Christ.

Right, right.  The menstrual cycle represents the death of Jebus, and therefore each month every woman must take two turtles or two pigeons to church to be burned.  That's nice.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the bible does NOT say a woman's monthly period is a curse or is the result of Eve's sin or anyone's sin.

Do a word search on "blood" on an online bible.  You'll find that there is much symbolism involved.  That fact that women would go outside the camp during bleeding and then to come before God afterward holds great parallels to Christ's blood being shed outside the city gates and then his return to the Father afterward. 

Therefore, these laws are NOT arbitrary in any way.  The ceremonial requirements of the Law of Moses were meant to teach us something about Jesus Christ.

Right, right.  The menstrual cycle represents the death of Jebus, and therefore each month every woman must take two turtles or two pigeons to church to be burned.  That's nice.

Have you not heard that EVERY animal sacrifice commanded by the Law of Moses has symbolism in the death of Christ?!  How is this news?

[Joe Republic]

Have you not heard that EVERY animal sacrifice commanded by the Law of Moses has symbolism in the death of Christ?!  How is this news?

If it isn't obvious to you by now that I find the whole concept patently comical, then you really must have difficulties.  We've gone from sodomy to the menstrual cycle to animal sacrifice, and in all cases we keep going back to what some dudes with kinky imaginations from thousands of years ago had to say on the subjects.

By the way, props to Moses for making up a commandment with symbolism that concerns a guy who hadn't been born yet.

[Joe Republic]

Another by the way; how should I inform my wife of her duty to take two turtles or pigeons to church to be burned each month?  Given that to my knowledge she has never done it before, should she take a big supply of them to compensate for the rituals she has missed?  If so, do PetSmart do bulk orders on either animal?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Have you not heard that EVERY animal sacrifice commanded by the Law of Moses has symbolism in the death of Christ?!  How is this news?

If it isn't obvious to you by now that I find the whole concept patently comical, then you really must have difficulties.  We've gone from sodomy to the menstrual cycle to animal sacrifice, and in all cases we keep going back to what some dudes with kinky imaginations from thousands of years ago had to say on the subjects.

By the way, props to Moses for making up a commandment with symbolism that concerns a guy who hadn't been born yet.

Moses didn't make it up.

Exodus 24:4 "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said."

---

Another by the way; how should I inform my wife of her duty to take two turtles or pigeons to church to be burned each month?  Given that to my knowledge she has never done it before, should she take a big supply of them to compensate for the rituals she has missed?  If so, do PetSmart do bulk orders on either animal?

Jesus' one sacrifice ended all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which is why the Temple in Jerusalem didn't remain standing.

[Joe Republic]

Have you not heard that EVERY animal sacrifice commanded by the Law of Moses has symbolism in the death of Christ?!  How is this news?

If it isn't obvious to you by now that I find the whole concept patently comical, then you really must have difficulties.  We've gone from sodomy to the menstrual cycle to animal sacrifice, and in all cases we keep going back to what some dudes with kinky imaginations from thousands of years ago had to say on the subjects.

By the way, props to Moses for making up a commandment with symbolism that concerns a guy who hadn't been born yet.

Moses didn't make it up.

Exodus 24:4 "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said."

Ah of course, it wasn't just his pure imagination.  It was the voice in his head instead.

Another by the way; how should I inform my wife of her duty to take two turtles or pigeons to church to be burned each month?  Given that to my knowledge she has never done it before, should she take a big supply of them to compensate for the rituals she has missed?  If so, do PetSmart do bulk orders on either animal?

Jesus' one sacrifice ended all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which is why the Temple in Jerusalem didn't remain standing.

Ah, thank goodness!  My wife will be relieved to hear this.  I'm glad you took my panic-ridden question seriously too; most people would have thought I was making fun of you or something.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why are you a little more antibible than usual?

[Joe Republic]

Ooh, "antibible", I like that.  I may have to use it in conversation.

To answer your question, I'm no more antibible than usual.  I've pretty much always considered the book to be sheer nonsense; an ancient precursor to the works of L. Ron Hubbard, if you will.  It's not even an entertaining work of fantasy fiction, like Lord of the Rings, for example.

[Lunar]

Hey, the climate seems to be at this (well at debates about this...) nowadays, so let's go further, why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs?

Some ideas?

it's nasty dude, c'mon get with it

[Lunar]

is antibible a word now?

[Joe Republic]

is antibible a word now?

Indeed.  I'd imagine it could also be a verb as well as an adjective; e.g. "Those atheists were antibibling all up in my face and shit."  Or perhaps even a noun too; e.g. "Dreams of my Father is the Antibible we've all been expecting."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ooh, "antibible", I like that.  I may have to use it in conversation.

To answer your question, I'm no more antibible than usual.  I've pretty much always considered the book to be sheer nonsense; an ancient precursor to the works of L. Ron Hubbard, if you will.  It's not even an entertaining work of fantasy fiction, like Lord of the Rings, for example.

sorry, I, once again, confused you with Dibble