Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyMarch 2nd, 2010
Warren Throckmorton re-read Ezekiel and wonders whether Americans really have exported the Sins of Sodom to Africa.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
David
March 2nd, 2010
He’s still ignorant about the Bible – there’s no evidence of sexual sin playing any role in the story of Sodom.
The phrase ‘detestable things’ that appears in the Ezekiel passage Warren quoted – is the same phrase Ezekiel uses earlier in the chapter when accusing Jerusalem of human sacrifice.
Evangelicals, and Throckmorton, need to completely let go of the false premise that sexual sin was a factor in Sodom’s destruction.
Of course, to do so will require recognizing that anyone who teaches homosexuality is sin (or wrong, bad, etc) is a true heir of Sodom.
John
March 2nd, 2010
One wonders whether this means Ssempa can rightly be called a sodomite. Now that would tick him off…
Eddie89
March 2nd, 2010
Actually, pastor Martin Ssempa should be considered a pornographer.
The Larry Flynt of Uganda!
Eddie89
March 2nd, 2010
Also, the good folks at Soulforce.org have an excellent article on this particular topic:
What the Bible Says – And Doesn’t Say – About Homosexuality
tavdy79
March 2nd, 2010
When I read the Warren Throckmorton piece I immediately thought of a recent post on Rob Tisinai’s “Waking Up Now” blog – Marriage Discrimination? $3500 Pay Cut!. The relevant section is here:
The “Sin of Sodom” wasn’t gay sex, it was lack of hospitality – the refusal to help the poor and needy, as Ezekiel says.
Rob highlighted the same lack of compassion in Maggie Gallagher. She dismissed all the millions of American couples who don’t fit the ideal she defined. She didn’t openly refuse to help those short-changed by the current system, but only because she avoided doing so by excluding them from a theoretical ideal that has only a sporadic acquaintance with reality and doesn’t even tally with the traditional conservative view of marriage which she supposedly champions!
Candace
March 2nd, 2010
To give Throckmorton the benfit of the doubt, I find no evidence that he is referring to homogenital acts when he speaks about the “sexual sin” of Sodom. Most likely hie is full aware of the real “sexual sin” in the entire Sodom story — when ALL THE PEOPLE in Sodom rushed out to rape the angels, and one of them is thought to be a Theophany Appearance of the Christ. IOW, the Hebrew very clearly says that ALL the people in the city of Sodom went rushing out to try and gang-bang a group of visitors, one of whom was probably Jesus in a pre-incarnate appearance. And rape is definitely a sin. Especially when you’re trying to rape, uh, god.
Read the passages carefully with a commentary that references the original language and you’ll find out that not only the MEN of Sodom wanted to rape, it was EVERYBODY in the city, ALL the people in Sodom who wanted to rape. They were quite a bunch, huh? No wonder Jesus and Ezekial both held the city of Sodom up as an example of the worst way possible to treat a visitor.
And note that Jesus didn’t say a single word about homosexuality at all when he was talking about the sin of Sodom.
Too bad 99.99% of christians are too damned lazy to ever get off their butts and study anything for themselves, so the “sin” of Sodom will continue to be misrepresented by homosexuality and GLBTT people will continue to be vilified for something they aren’t even remotely connected with.
Throckmorton is right that the ones today who are guilty of the sin of Sodmo are those christians and churches who slam the doors in the faces of their gay brothers and sisters, leaving them outside the camp to fend for themselves and die. Jesus condemned it then and would condemn it again today.
Candace
March 2nd, 2010
And if I hadn’t been up like 18 hours now, I would have said “Sodom” instead of “Sodmo.” Nite.
Richard W. Fitch
March 2nd, 2010
Candace: Actually, Dr. T doesn’t say “sexual” just Sins of Sodom. Click on the link in the article for a better understanding. Dr. T’s blog is always a very lively forum.
Candace
March 2nd, 2010
I’m referencing this
“The sexual sins of Sodom are second rate compared to the sins of pride and greed”
and explaining that the only sexual sin of Sodom was rape, certainly not homogenital sex acts.
John
March 2nd, 2010
I have always found the story of Sodom and Gomorrhah very interesting. People focus on the destruction and God condemning the cities, but ignore the chapters before all this when Sodom was so weak that it couldn’t defend itself. It was over-run, the people and possessions were taken, along with Lot and his family. Abraham came and liberated them all. The King of Sodom told Abraham to take whateer he wanted, but please let the people of Sodom go free. Abraham said something to the effect that he didn’t want to be known as the guy who got rich off the people of Sodom.
So Sodom couldn’t defend itself, and the only reason Abraham and his troops saved the day was due to Lot.
Short time later, Sodom destroyed, but Lot and family spared. Hmmm. It seems far more likely that another armed group destroyed the cities, avoiding the mistake of angering Abraham. In fact, Lot was probably warned of the attack or in on it.
Sodom’s days were numbered long before the angels visited, and it clearly didn’t require divine intervention to bring them to their knees.
(Apologies to the experts for my quick run-down. I may have a few details off, but the jist is certainly all there).
David
March 2nd, 2010
“when ALL THE PEOPLE in Sodom rushed out to rape the angels, and one of them is thought to be a Theophany Appearance of the Christ. IOW, the Hebrew very clearly says that ALL the people in the city of Sodom went rushing out to try and gang-bang a group of visitors, one of whom was probably Jesus in a pre-incarnate appearance. And rape is definitely a sin. Especially when you’re trying to rape, uh, god.”
First, rape is an act of violence, rather than sexual attraction or desire. It is a domination/violence sin, rather than a sexual one, really.
Second, the city of Sodom was condemned by God before the angels arrive. Read some of the chapters of Genesis that precede the portion cherry-picked by homophobes (Gen 19). Chapter 14, for example, recounts a rebellion that the Sodom participated in, and was subsequently counquered and sacked over. In Chapter 18, the following appears:
“16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” God is speaking of the impending destruction of Sodom.
Third, the idea of rape hangs on a very shaky translation assumption about the meaning of the word yada. Yada means acquire knowledge, to know, and only in a few instances is it used euphemistically to indicate sexual knowledge. Yada is used in the OT more often to describe something one does relative to God. To read sex/rape into this instance, a crowd scene of men, women and children, is kinky at best.
There’s the issue of using euphemism to describe something so terrible, fundi-presumably, that an entire city was destroyed over it. That is hardly a case of good communication.
And the accusation against Lot “now he wants to play the judge” makes no sense either, if rape were the intent.
b
The most rational though no less cruel translation for yada in this passage is interrogate/torture, particularly since the people of Sodom had a reputation for precisely that – torturing strangers. Given their recent defeat/sacking, it would not be unusual for people already known for cruelty to engage in torture of suspected ‘enemy combatants’.
So here’s the really ironic part. Look back over the last eight years, and let me know if you think of any other way that people of a certain ideology have acted like heirs of Sodom.
Candace
March 3rd, 2010
Well, it’s a certainty that male/male rape was a part of “interogation” to stone-age savages. Like Bush and Cheney.
wister
March 3rd, 2010
Perhaps I’m wrong about this but isn’t it true that no archeological trace has ever been found of such a place? So what are we talking about? An old text so heavily edited and re-written its original intent is impossible to guess at? This Lot who was saved, isn’t he the same character who is later raped by his daughters while drunk so that they can get pregnant? Sounds like a founding myth to me. And a pretty repulsive one at that. Give me the Greeks any day and the stern beauties of Homer.
I find that Throckmorton site particularly offensive for its smug complacency. And the commenters are really vile. Almost all of them discussing whether or not I should be put to death with all the insight of a bunch of provincial high-school teachers who feel way too safe in their jobs.
Richard Rush
March 3rd, 2010
Unless one is just curious and fascinated by the thoughts and writings of superstitious ancient people, why are we debating this? It’s the wrong debate, in my view, as it presupposes the validity of Christianity and its predecessors. A more productive debate would be the validity of Christianity vs. other religions, or better yet, a debate on whether any gods exist. There is only one reason that anyone believes in a particular religion, and that is indoctrination. There is no evidence that Christianity is more valid than other religions.
—————————-
But, given the debate that appears here, and if the Bible is really the Word of God, shouldn’t God have done a much better job of having His ghost writers clarify the original intent? Given that God apparently sends people to Hell for any of a multitude of sins, is it too much to ask for Him to be clear about what those sins are? If God is real, he could have done that, and He could also have made sure that the Biblical writings would not be subject to myriad interpretational and translation issues. And God could have performed the miracle of having the original manuscripts survive to this day in defiance of the usual natural processes. For someone so sloppy in the writing and preservation of His rulebook, God sure seems eager to make sure every sinner goes to Hell. I would have expected better from a god.
Timothy Kincaid
March 3rd, 2010
wister,
There are archeological sites that some think are the remains of Sodom and her four neighbor cities. Those who want to believe that they are Sodom and Gamorrah find ways to do so; those who do not want to believe it find ways not to.
Also I’ve not read any instances of commenters at Warren’s site discussing putting anyone to death. Might that be an exageration?
Timothy Kincaid
March 3rd, 2010
Richard,
This does not presuppose the validity of anything. What it does, however, is frame the conversation in the language of evangelicals and add complexity to the debate.
If you want to debate the validity of Christianity, there are many sites dedicated to just that purpose. Personally, I find it distracting and counterproductive to scream “your religion is a myth”. It accomplishes nothing but shutting down the discussion altogether… as well as being boorish behavior.
Priya Lynn
March 3rd, 2010
If people weren’t presupposing the validity of christianity no one would bring up the story of Sodom in the first place. You don’t see many gay blogs discussing the meaning of Harry Potter and the implications of Dumbledore being gay.
Timothy Kincaid
March 3rd, 2010
Priya Lynn,
Funny you should mention that. Interestingly, no one felt compelled to denounce the presupposition that Dumbledore exists. I guess there aren’t that many evangelical anti-Potters that read our site.
So now we will return to the subject at hand: whether Christians (and Jews) are applying their understanding of the Sodom story in their holy texts in a manner that seems consistent.
Priya Lynn
March 3rd, 2010
Timothy, compare that one post to the mention of the story of sodom, over and over and over – there’s no comparison. Sodom will continue to come up on this blog time and again, but I doubt you’ll be hearing about dumbledore very often. No one felt compelled to denounce the presupposition that Dumbledore exists because there was no presupposition, everyone agreed that this is a fictional character.
I can understand christians finding the assertion that their religion is fiction boorish, but non-christians equally find christians assumption that it is true boorish. We all have a right to be boorish.
Priya Lynn
March 3rd, 2010
For example Timothy, if you search Box Turtle Bulletion for “Sodom” you’ll find 463 results. If you search for “Dumbledore” you’ll find 3 results.
Richard W. Fitch
March 3rd, 2010
Comment deleted. Off topic.
Timothy Kincaid
March 3rd, 2010
Not on this site, you don’t. If you want to evangelize for your faith, do it elsewhere.
Priya Lynn
March 3rd, 2010
Comment deleted. Off topic.
Priya Lynn
March 3rd, 2010
Comment deleted. Off topic.
anteros
March 3rd, 2010
I think many Christians dont have a very clear understanding of the story of Sodom in the bible.
I think one of the main reasons for this is the English word for anal sex – sodomy, which I (probably along with millions of others) assume is derived from Sodom, and the story of Sodom in the bible.
So, many of those who dont have a clear understanding of the story of Sodom, are probably comfortable with the unfortunate Sodom – sodomy link… and couldnt be bothered to dig deeper and challenge that link and the resulting assumed moral of the story.
Many of those that do have a clearer understanding of the story of Sodom, are probably inclined to focus on anal sex (sodomy rhymes with Sodom, right!?), more specifically gay anal sex, and conclude that that was the sin that attracted the wrath of god.
Another reason, is homophobia.
How many priests, preachers and pastors take advantage of that unfortunate link and the ignorance of their followers to vent and spread their homophobia by asserting that according to their expert interpretation of the story of Sodom… homosexuality attracts the wrath of god because according to them, sodomy = anal sex = gay sex = homosexuality? For how many centuries have anti-gay sermons been based on the story of Sodom? The remixed moral of that story has pretty much become an unfortunate piece of oral tradition, even outside the church.
It’s a cheap but smart way of preaching and instilling homophobia as a righteous/godly virtue.
What better way for homophobic church leaders and homophobic followers to justify their homophobia?
Perhaps that’s how the word sodomy came into existence – for the purpose of justifying homophobia? What a cleverly devised tool for homophobia!
Richard W. Fitch
March 3rd, 2010
anteros: the link between Sodom and sodomy is no accident. It was developed by The Church (pre-Reformation) during the 11th century. In Latin, sodemia connects to blasphemia to pose this as an affront to God.
The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology by Mark D. Jordan (1998)
anteros
March 3rd, 2010
@ Richard W. Fitch
Wow! Thanks for sharing that info and those references. Makes me miss having access to online journals and libraries that would have that kind of material.
If only everybody knew about this… If only the word sodomy could fall out of use forever. What would it take for dictionaries to scrap the word? I guess the church would still use the S word.
Kinda reminds me of onanism… it seems much easier for most people to dismiss ‘onanism = masturbation = sin’. Perhaps that’s because unlike unrepentant gay people, habitual masturbators arent a sexual minority – so those who enjoy ‘bashing the bishop’ cant help but give serious thought to the validity of ‘masturbation = onanism = sin’. Is that why so many (celibate) priests are willing to concede that masturbation is a natural god-given gift (or at least a negligible ‘minor sin’)?
If gay people werent a sexual minority (that’s a questionable assumption, I know… I watched that Kinsey movie)… or if more gay people would come out (I’m a fine one to speak about coming out)… then perhaps more people would start asking the right questions about Sodom and sodomy. Maybe then they’d realise that gay sex is just as sinless as ‘punishing the pope’…and quit going to church and lose their bibles like some of us have already done?
Randall Reaves
March 3rd, 2010
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality.
Candace
March 3rd, 2010
I’ve read a ton of explanations of the whle “sodomy” thing and this is the best ever:
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=bible_homosexuality_1
& snarky too. Enjoy.
Leave A Comment