Talk:Sodomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

definition

definition of sodomy varies from one jurisdiction to another

see sodomy law

Poor grammar - makes it difficult to understand in places

The grammar in this article is pretty poor in places, e.g. I found this example of poor writing in the 'Modern English translation of Jude' section: "*A third opinion is based upon the fact that the same term of "false flesh" is used in the Mosaic laws were within the context it is clearly referring to cannibalism as was common in the people of Canaan that the Sodomites were part of." I'm not familiar with subject matter, and found this very hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.226.39 (talk) 21:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Why not fix the grammar? Isn't this what wikipedia is for? Antivert (talk)

Under "modern Christian Views" section: Countering this is the argument that that most of the uses of yâda‛ denoting sex is in Genesis, "..that that.." s/b "..that..." and "...is in..." should be "...are in...", to agree with the subject of the clause, "...most of the uses...".

Terrible Article - Needs Re-Writing

This is the WORST article I have ever read on Wikipedia! The person who "edited" the section called "Understandings of “The Sins of Sodom”" is obviously biased towards "same-sex issues", as they would no doubt call it! This section is in no way encyclopedic. It is appalling!

There are certain people with an "agenda" on here. They will remove anything that suggests homosexuality is a sin. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I totally agree! This article doesn't use any of the many passages in the bible that directly say that sodomy is a sin. There are also many passages that clearify the passages in Genesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.74.193 (talk) October 17, 2007

Much of the article reads like an essay by one who has uncritically accepted a pro homosexual polemic. I corrected the repeated idea that Justinian was the first to link Sodom with homosex, and attempted to make some of the statements more neutral, and add some balance and content. But i think "modern Christian views" should be move to after Josephus, before the history lesson.Daniel1212 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

between gay men?

I don't think it has to be men. My dictionaries have it being either any sort of "morally perverse" activity, such as bestiality, or in the alternative, anal penetration (regardless of the sex of the taker.) Loisel 08:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

lots of dicdefs include anal sex regardless of gender of 'taker' as you say. many dicdefs also include oral to genital regardless of genders of participants. Bestiality is less common a definition. MPS 23:38, 12 October 2005 (U

Love and marriage

User:Stevertigo keeps insisting on inserting "love" and "marriage" in contrast to "sodomy" in the lead to the article. I believe this says more about his personal beliefs than about the legal concept of sodomy; it is harder to demonstrate what relation it has to some religious concept (there are so many to choose from), but still seems to me not to belong in the narrative voice of the article, let alone the lead.

As I stated in an edit summary, "Clearly marriage is irrelevant here: many (perhaps most?) sodomy laws made certain sex-acts within marriage illegal, too. As for love, similarly: this is about the act, not the relationship."

As far as I know, there was no jurisdiction in which loving someone was a defense against sodomy charges. Stevertigo may want to say that a loving act of anal intercourse is not "sodomy", and there might be a few people in very recent times who believe (for example) that anal intercourse constitutes a crime or sin of "sodomy" but would make an exception to that characterization if the act was one of love, but I am unaware of any law that makes that distinction, and would be surprised to find a pre-Stonewall religious case to that effect.

As for marriage, I believe the U.S. state of Alabama made that particular exception, but I'm also unaware of any other jurisdiction that did or does. Any act between a man and a woman that is/was considered "sodomy" is/was, almost everywhere, just as much so if the couple are/were married. Clearly Alabama alone against the world is not the norm.

I see that none of this is in the article. Frankly, right now, it's a pretty lightweight article, and needs to be fleshed out with facts, not purple prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I note that no one has responded to this at all. Is anyone interested in working on this article? I'm too busy to take it on, but this is as lightweight as it was when I wrote this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

But sodomy and marrige ARE contrast! As far as I know, the law still defines marrige as one man + one woman. Therefore sodomy is in direct contrast to marrige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.74.193 (talk) October 17, 2007

As to the legal definition of marriage, that depends on time and place. In several European countries and in Canada, gay marriage is legal. In most Muslim countries, polygamous heterosexual marriage is legal. In India, although I don't think it has formal legal recognition, Hinduism respects the concept of (for example) a woman marrying a snake (considered an incarnation of a deity). Conversely, not long ago many U.S. states did not allow interracial marriage.

But all of that is somewhat beside the point for this article: "sodomy" refers to a physical act, not to the relationship between the people performing it. In many times and places, legally married couple could be charged with sodomy. - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

the misdeeds of Sodom

The following was recently and anonymously cut, without explanation. Probably merits discussion: I believe this to be true, but I'm no Biblical scholar. Can someone who is please weigh in?

Traditionally, the misdeeds of Sodom have been understood to be male homosexual anal intercourse, but it should be noted that the primary crime stated in the narrative in the book of Genesis was attempted male-on-male gang rape of foreigners, not simply homosexual behaviour.

Jmabel | Talk 21:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the misdeeds of Sodom are commonly understood to be male homosexual anal intercourse, it is not true that they bible claims the primary crime is attempted rape. Though such an account is featured (specifically, that Lot welcomes some travellers (who are actually angels dressed as men) to his home. A mob forms and demands the men be handed over so that the mob may "know" them. Lot then offers his daughters "who have never known a man" instead of the strangers but his offer is refused), the bible only says that Sodom was destroyed because its people had turned away from their god. - Kuzain 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't that section of Genesis also be read as a condemnation of those who would defile the traditional customs of hospitality? The two men are guests in Lot's home, and so he is bound not to throw them out to the mob. If the deity in that case had chosen a female form, the story would be no different, and would not, as it can be argued that it does not now, have anything to do with homosexuality or a condemnation thereof. Personally, I think the "turned away from their god" point is far and away the intended one of the author; the interpretation of that passage as condemning homosexuality seems to have been a far later addition. Suntiger 16:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, that's already in there. My bad.. still, it could use revision. Suntiger 16:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality has been the prevalent interpretation of the sin of Sodom in Christianity. Let us not forget that Genesis was originally and remains to this day a Jewish scripture. Judaism has taken a much broader view of the sins of Sodom, including lack of charity and violating hospitality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.146.172 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Genesis 6: Fallen angels

The term "sons of God" is commonly interpreted as "God's angels". Note, however, that the word "angel" is not specifically used here in Genesis 6 as it is in Gen 19. The term "sons of God" could very well refer to Seth's lineage as opposed to Cain's (Cain had been cast from God's presence in Genesis 4).

Please see the following passages:

Genesis 4

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

— NIV, Gen. 4:13-16

23 Lamech said to his wives,

"Adah and Zillah, listen to me;

wives of Lamech, hear my words.

I have killed a man for wounding me,

a young man for injuring me.

24 If Cain is avenged seven times,

then Lamech seventy-seven times."

— NIV, Gen. 4:23,24

Note Lamech's statement. God sets himself as Cain's protector. Lamech, however takes things upon himself. This may have been representative of the rest of Cain's lineage.

25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.

— NIV, Gen. 4:25

Genesis 5:6-32 lists the lineage of Seth, which, unlike that of Cain, still existed in God's presence. The account of Seth's lineage ends with Noah.

The depravity that evoked the response in Genesis 6:

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

— NIV, Gen. 6:5,6

was probably due to the spread of disobedience from Cain's line to Seth's.

In this context, the account of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" has little to do with "strange flesh". Nabetse (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

potential page edit

I don't feel confident editing Wikipedia myself yet, but this phrase in the entry probably needs adjusting:

"act of anal sex both between heterosexuals"

See? It's like a logical paradox, almost. I mean a person might not have to be strictly homosexual to have anal sex, but if they're strictly heterosexual, then not much anal sex is gonna happen without sex toys. It's an awkward phrase.

I'll try to fix it. MPS 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To be blunt about it, a man's penis can enter a woman's anus without involving a sex toy. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, most people would consider sex in which a woman penatrates the anus of a man with something anal sex even if it did not involve a penis. - Kuzain 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit?

Cut: "An alternate derivation of the word 'sodomy' is from the Sanskrit 'Sot-tah-mee,' which describes the act of searching for dirt." I seriously doubt it. Please provide a citation if you want to place this in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a joke. - Kuzain 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

definition

Whatever happened to the simple definition that Sodomy was any sexual relations without the goal of procreation? --DanielCD 19:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a reference for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.146.172 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Understandings paragraph (mischievously deleted Feb 16)

I'm fairly new at Wiki, but it looks to me like the section "Alternate Understandings of the sins of Sodom" was edited out by vandal-editor 165.29.44.104 on Feb 16 with the comment "y'all suck my dick." His other vandalisms were removed but his deletion was not restored.

You may know that John Boswell, in his book Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Univ. Chicago Press, 1980) did an extremely good documentation of the fact that numerous Old Testament references to Sodom identify inhospitality as its particular vice. The homosexual interpretation entered the literature circa the turn of the new millennium and appeared in "modern" form somewhat later, leading to hints in the New Testament and overt talk about same-sex acts only in the much later Qur'an. The paragraph could be strengthened if Boswell were mentioned, but right now, being a bit short of time, I have just restored it as it was, courtesy of an online cache.

It should also be noted that several scholars, e.g. Richard B. Hays, have questioned John Boswells findings.--itpastorn 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternate understandings of the sins of Sodom

Furthermore, in the book of Ezekiel, God speaks through his prophet saying, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (16:49-50, KJV). From the Biblical perspective, the sins of Sodom were many, though not all were explicit in the narrative account, and the act of attempted homosexual gang rape may be read into it, serving to emphasise the Sodomites' depravity rather than uniquely characterise it. According to recent critiques by some liberal Christians [1] the sins of Sodom were related more to violation of hospitality laws than sexual sins. An explicit scriptural connection between homosexual aggression and Sodom is found only in the Qur'an, though the city name 'Sodom' does not appear there. The Sodomites are referred to as "the people of Lut (Lot)." (Lot (Biblical) is the nephew of the Hebrew/Arabic patriarch Abraham and, in the Judaic Sodom stories, is head of the only family allowed by God to survive Sodom's destruction. In the Qur'an, he is also the divinely appointed national prophet to his people. Since their national name was unrecorded and "people of Lot" was the only available designation, the Islamic equivalent of 'sodomy' has become 'liwat,' which could be roughly translated as "lottishness" (see Homosexuality and Islam). Summerbell 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Bugger Waugh

The Waugh anecdote is lovely, but since it seems to relate to the word "buggery", not "sodomy", I'm not at all sure it belongs here. - Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Word in English

Shouldn't we mention somewhere in the article that this word, in English, is primarily used in a legal or religious/moral context? It is even less used in an erotic/sexual context than "buggery". - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah

I see this as one of the many examples of biased information. This seems to occur time and time again on Wikipedia, and yet it stays and is not edited. I guess that's what you get for a "free encyclopaedia" - but it's better to have more unbiased and truthful information.

It is commonly believed that Leviticus 18 lists sexual crimes that, if followed, would result in the land being “defiled.”

However, there is textual support in Christian and Jewish scripture for the belief that the sins of Sodom were not sexual in nature.

This is not mainstream theology. For a start, Ezekiel is not a part of the Torah and so it has nothing to say as to overwrite what is written in the Torah. Put simply, Sodom and Gomorrah is destroyed for sexual defilation and this occurs in Genesis. Ezekiel has every right to talk about it, and use it as a reference for bad hospitality - but this doesn't mean their sins weren't sexual in nature. The idea that God destroyed them for their poor hospitality instead of their sexual immorality?

The King James Version is cited - but this isn't a good reference either. For a start, as with any translation it suffers from errors, and language lost in translation - the only correct way to talk about the wording of the Bible is to study the Hebrew and Greek. The Greek language has 3 words for love, in any English translation we only have one word that can't fully express the Greek.

Every single point is speculative, opinion and isn't mainstream or based on what the Bible actually says. The fact that wikipedia gives more weight to the argument against mainstream interoperation shows bias; and I'm not prepared to edit it myself because I know someone else who's "anti-homophobia" will edit it back due to their bias. 210.9.143.120 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Watcher

Genesis is explict that it was sexual sin. See Genesis 19:5. [NIV: They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."] Askbros 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear at all. Hebrew yada means to see and to know, and the Hebrew text literally refers to "all people of Sodom", not particularly the males, gathering in front of Lot's house. Jewish scholars have always interpreted the story of Sodom as one on inhospitability: Remember that Sodom was a very inhospitable city to foreigners, and that's when they found out that two strangers were within their walls. Yahweh had decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their previous diverse immoralities long before the Lot anecdote. Jude refers to "going after false flesh", that can mean a whole lot of things, including cannibalism common in Canaanites. Nobody ever had the idea that the story could refer to one particular sin, even a sexual one, before Byzantine emperor Justinian the Great during the 500s CE made up that claim to serve his personal power politics. --Tlatosmd 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just like someone to do some actual research, and find jewish sources that say that Sodom's sins was sexually related. Rambam wrote, as have many others, and I was also taught in school, that the reason sodom was destroyed was because they outlawed charity, did not show gratitude, and would not allow people to house guests. As it says in Pirkei Avot " What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, that is the attitude of Sodom" Please refrain from portraying Christian beliefs and interpretations as Jewish ones. 208.78.120.35 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My research shows the evidence is for the sin of Sodom being sexual over interrogation. Out of it's over 900 occurrences "yada" is never used to gain knowledge by interrogation, but it is often used (approx. 12 times, and most frequently in Genesis) as a primary verb to gain knowledge by sexual means. Lot's offer of his virgin daughters (he also had married ones elsewhere) for them to do as they please (indicating an action is desired) in substitution for the men speaks more of sex than interrogation of a non-sexual ransom. The parallel account in Jdg. 19 best indicates the "vile" thing of knowing the man in that account was sexual.

As for "men of sodom", while the word for "men" here ('îysh) can sometimes be translated like "whoever," i think if you looked at it's use in the 1,714 times that it occurs, you would see that it's use to denote specifically men here is well within bounds. Gen 24:58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jude 7 cannot "mean a whole lot of things, including cannibalism" if one reads it in context, as the principal sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is explicitly stated to be "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (v. 7)

The typical alternative explanation for what this fornication was is that it was sexual relations between angels and men, invoking Gn. 6:2-4, but if the “sons of God (cf. Job. 1:6; 2:1) were angels then it would be male angels going after women, and not as in Jude 7 and Gn. 19. Moreover, it is unlikely those of Sodom (and even Lot) knew the (likely handsome) men were angels. Some invoke the book of Enochian legends here, but neither Sodom nor sex with angels (appearing as men) is mentioned therein.

The word for “strange (heteros[2087]) as in "going after strange flesh" (Jude v.7) moast often does mean “another/other” and most often refers to humans, including in reference to having an unlawful union with another, that of someone who is not lawfully one's spouse (Rm. 7:3), or a false ("another") gospel (Gal. 1:6). As such it easily can fit a sexual situation in Gn. 19, in which men of Sodom, being confirmed fornicators, seek to perversely have sexual relations with “another flesh,” that being other than that which is lawful and normal, which was with men.

It is also contended that the Bible elsewhere does not link Sodom with sex, however sins which Sodom is linked to include adultery and lies (Jer. 23:14); unrepentance (Mt. 11:20-24; Mk. 6:11, 12); careless living (Lk. 17:29) fornication (Rev. 11:8; cf. 17:2, 4); and overall “filthy conversation”[G766], which means sexual sins (lasciviousness: 2 Pt. 2:7; cf. Mar_7:22, 2Co_12:21, Eph_4:19, 1Pe_4:3, Jud_1:4; or wantonness: Rom_13:13, 2Pe_2:18). In examining the physical sins Sodom is most often associated with, we see that these were most often of a sexual nature. It is assumed that Jesus invoked Sodom as an warning to cities because they were generally inhospitable, but more specifically He foretold that cities which would not repent would be judged more severely than Sodom (Mt. 10:14; 11:20-24), as that was the cause behind their specific “inhospitality” toward His disciples, who “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mk. 6:11,12). In Christian soteriology, this is ultimately more damnable than sodomy, as to reject the One who died for man's sins (as Sodom in essence did) is the ultimate sin of damnation.

As regards Jewish sources, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom:

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" [133-34; ET Jonge 422-23] (The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler).

Also, in summarizing the Genesis 19 account, the Jewish historian Josephus stated:

About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (Antiquities 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96). Such helps define what manner of fornication (Jude 1:7) Sodom was given to. Daniel1212 (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sodomy vs buggery.

I was surprised to see that buggery is a redirect to sodomy. I have always understood that sodomy is anal sex with a woman and buggery is anal sex with a man, hence the phrase "Buggery is legal after 90 days at sea" which refers to a purported law making it legal for (male) sailors to use each other for sexual release.

I can find no web reference for either the 'law' or the difference between the terms, yet both were used often in the way I described where I used to live while growing up. Darminator 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense

Whoever wrote this article is a Christian extremist lunatic. The term "sodomy" has nothing to do with the classical Christanic mythologies or any of the towns or cities mentioned with them.

The Etymology of the word is probably well known. This amusingly ignorant, buttfuckingly stupid claim is one that Christian morons have been making for centuries.

Yes, indeed, what absolute nonsense!

Whoever wrote this unsigned post is a total ignoramus. And the post is so rude that it isn't even "amusingly ignorant". The etymology of the word is indeed well known. The word "sodomy" derives from the town of Sodom, exactly as stated in the article.

Moreover, the reference doesn't come from so called Christanic mythologies but from Jewish scripture. What is more, there is appropriate, (and mostly correct), cited reference and quotes of what the scriptures actually say. With both primary and secondary sources cited. (A bit of the body of the prostitute would undoubtedly be a primary source, See below.)

--Amandajm 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Summery

The summery for this page is filled with information that does not belong in a summery. It should be instantly apparent that sodomy refers to homosexuality in the first sentence. I am sure that the VAST majority of readers of this article just want to know that sodomy refers to homosexuality.

Small edit to fix this problem

The above problem has probably been caused by the fact that somehow the prefix "homo-" was left off, or removed from, the word "-sexuality" in a context where it should have been. The explanation has now been restored. --Amandajm 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Judges 19 reference

Interestingly, a similar story involving inhospitability is found in the Book of Judges 19 that ends with the same consequence of destruction by divine wrath.

This starts with a "weasel word" (is that what you call it?) "Interestingly...". It's no more interesting than any other citation and, in fact, it's a misinterpration. The story starts with "inhospitability", then there are threats of homosexaul rape, then there is the actual rape and murder of a woman. So there is a great deal more involved than simply failing to provide shelter to a stranger.

What happened is this:-

Travellers came to a town, and at first no-one took them in, which was the custom. An old man came along and the traveller complained to him and said "We won't even cost anything because we have our own food and straw for our beasts!" The old mman said,"Well, I can't let you spend your night here in the town square." (It would have been considered a disgrace to the village, and also a personal disgrace to the old man himself if he had failed to shelter a stranger.)

During the night a gang of drunken bullies came yelling "Send the stranger out so that we may **** him!" The older English translations of the Bible such as the King James and RSV use "know" him. This is used to mean "to have sexual intercourse with" as in "Joseph knew her not until after she had brought forth her child". If they had only wanted to meet the man and take him to the pub, then it would have been expressed as "meet him" or "welcome him".

The response of the host was to say "No, don't do this disgraceful thing to this man! Look, I'll even give you my own daughter if you'll leave the man alone!" (Because to have his daughter raped was a disgrace, but to have a male stranger residing in his house raped was much more disgraceful.)

The visitor had with him a prostitute whom he apparently intended to marry, as he had visited her family, who had been very happy to meet him, and was taking her home with him. The prostitute went out to the men. They raped her all night and left her dead on the doorstep.

When her lover found her body, he took a large knife and cut it into twelve pieces which he then sent to the leaders of the country as a witness to the ghastly thing that had happened.

My POV is that if anything could be said to be deserving of wrath, divine or otherwise, then this was. --Amandajm 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction, by including the phrase "In countries that do not have laws against homosexual acts" seems to imply that such laws would be the norm, which obviously they are not at least in the English-speaking world. The introduction implies an anti-homosexual point of view that should be removed. Unusual Cheese 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't intended to imply an anti-homosexual point of view, and in fact, it does not. There are still quite a number of countries which DO have such laws. Amandajm 12:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reread the intro as it was before I worked on it a bit more.

I want to make the point here that the fact that I have written about the laws is hardly an indication that one approves of such laws. But the term "Sodomy" is really not used very much nowadays, except in a legal context, and this is the context that I have tried to indicate. All the historic business about the Bible and so on, is background, really.

If you have not done so, check the link to the Sodomy Laws website. [1]. The map is quite depressing really, because, as as the situation remains now, it is mainly targetted against consenting males and one can see so little hope of improvement. Amandajm 12:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I'm not thrilled with the unsourced POV of essentializing "sodomy" as non-reproductive sexuality. This is a modern point of view, and I don't think it can be sourced as being an important part of the broader historical definition. Dybryd 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

unsourced POV language throughout the opening paragraphs

Wow! This article has taken a turn for the POV since I last looked at it! The whole opening passage needs a complete rewrite!

Dybryd 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

No Dybryd, you have got it precisely wrong.

This broad definition of sodomy is not the "modern" definiton. This is the definition. Before you make statements like your previous two, just go and do some research into the way that the term is used in law.

What I did here, initially, was rewrite existent material more clearly, and add the dictionary defintion. Someone had left a message about Christians and the Bible so I added the O.E.D reference to the Latin, and the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, because (like so many other English terms) it really is Biblical in origin.

I am going to include here part of an article which expresses the problem of the "legal" usage.

New York Deletes ‘Sodomy’ from Its Laws Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network, June 20, 2003 [2]

"Sex assault crimes in New York were categorized for decades as rape and sodomy. The definition of rape was a crime of “sexual intercourse,” while the crime of sodomy was defined as “deviate sexual intercourse.”

Advocates for victims of sexual assault also welcomed Friday’s announcement.

“It has been excruciating for a woman who has been raped to be told, read in the papers, have to sign complaints and testify on the stand that she was ‘sodomized’ or subjected to ‘deviate sexual intercourse,’” said Susan Xenarios, director of the St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Crime Victims Treatment Center.

ESPA said that because of a misinterpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the Bible, many people associated “sodomy” with gay sex, when in fact the overwhelming majority of sodomy crime charges in New York involve oral sexual assaults by men against women."

• My message to you, specifically, Dybryd, is learn the meaning of the term P.O.V. before you start throwing it around.

I am not expressing my P.O.V., or in fact, anybody else's P.O.V. This is not about P.O.V. It is about examining and stating exactly how the term "sodomy" has been used. It is not my P.O.V. that contact between the mouth (for example) and a genital region is "sodomy" but that was the law in New York from 1881 to 2003.

• So, after you've done some research, can I suggest that you return to the article and remove the ridiculous banner.

Amandajm 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Why was my assertion removed that Islam was most likely influenced by Justinian's interpretation of Sodom a century earlier? There was no other source for such an interpretation at the time, after all. --Tlatosmd 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Islam does not necessarily prohibit anal sex with women, contrary to what is stated in this article. Perhaps an expert on Islamic law might comment.86.162.200.24 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with above and I checked and anal sex is not prohibited with women in Shia's belief. June, 1, 2008,Anal sex in Islamic law

Oh my, how poorly written this is

A couple of other users pointed out the fact that the writing for this article is poor. We need to do something about this for once. I think the article should be rewritten completely because the poor writing is evident throughout the entire article. Perhaps we can take it section-by-section, splitting is among contributors? Feel free to contact me on my Talk page. - Cyborg Ninja 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrible article needs a complete rewrite

This article is focusing on people group's views of the topic in history, at best that should be in a History of Sodomy article not in a topical article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

weird

what about two straight guys who were friends, and just experiment? they would be doin' it 'cause they ain't ever fucked a gal before, and they were curios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.56.214 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lex Scantinia and Lex Julia

This article says: Justinian's were not the first Roman laws prohibiting homosexual behavior. Earlier such measures had been included in the Lex Scantinia dating from 149 BC and the Lex Julia dating from 17 BC, both constituting the death penalty for homosexual behavior. Allegations exist that even before Lex Scantinia such laws existed, but direct evidence of these laws has been lost. While sticking to the death penalty by beheading as punishment for homosexuality, Justinian's legal novels heralded a change in Roman legal paradigm as in that he introduced a concept of not only mundane but also divine punishment for homosexual behavior. However, the Lex Scantinia was an obscure law, of which the text itself is unknown, with only scant influence on Roman Republican society. It didn't forbid 'sodomy', but only rape of freeborn boys. Naturally, violation of a member of the higher classes was a terrible sin in Roman society. Male-male sex with a member of one's own class was unimportant, or at worst laughed at, and with a slave it was as natural as day and night. Like the Lex Julia, the Lex Scantinia was a law about keeping the social classes apart. The Lex Julia, or better the Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis of the emperor Augustus, 17 BC, itself fined adulterers of the various kinds. In the Wikipedia article about this law, homosexual acts are not mentioned. Sword and fire against homosexual acts only occurred after Constantine the Great, under the emperor Constans. Until the Constantinian era, there is no connection in Roman law with anything like sodomy. Soczyczi (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been called sodomy, but same-sex activities were punished by death as either stuprum cum masculo or paederastia mostly indiscriminately of age structures. See recently contributed sources. More sources that directly quote from Lex Scantinia and dwell on it at length:

• Joh. Frid. Christ. (1726), Historia legis Scantiniae ("History of Lex Scantinia")
• Theodor Mommsen (1899), Römisches Strafrecht ("Roman Criminal Law")
• Münzer's (1921) entry for Scantinius in: Pauly-Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft ("Specialist Encyclopedia of Classical Ancient Philology")

Mommsen 1899 also quotes either Seneca the Elder or Seneca the Younger commenting on Lex Scantinia. A contemporary supplement to Augustusus's Lex Julia (which in itself was only meant to complement Lex Scantinia) were the Sententiae by Julius Paulus which legislated that he who had committed same-sex activities with a free man was beheaded irregardless of his own social status, he who allowed himself to be used by another man was fined with half of all his fortunes and belongings and he was not allowed to make any testaments for what he had left which after his death were seized by the state. He who had abducted a free-born boy with an intention of rape was beheaded, if it had only been an unsuccessful attempt he was deported to a deserted island for life, in any case his accomplices were beheaded. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1978 also mentions the factual severity of Roman fines related to sexual deviance as they were meant to result in civil death because they made the fined one so poor he was unable to pursue a life or career anymore. The sententiae were so important that Justinian I. still praised their influence, regarding them as a genuine part of Lex Julia.

Of course slaves were considered res and were therefore legally not considered people at all, so one could do with them as one pleased, even though same-sex behavior with them was connoted or associated with effeminacy as well. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Conservative slant

Why does it seem that a Conservative got a hold of this article? The article comes off as being the position of all Christians that the story of Lot is about homosexuality and that "to know" means sex. There are 936 occurrences of "know" in the Old Testament, 'know' with the meaning of sexual intercourse only occurs about a dozen times and when it does it only describes marital sex. Since the strangers entered the city at dusk and went straight to a foreigner’s house (Lot was a foreigner to Sodom), it is much more reasonable to believe that the men of the city would be interested in cross-examining these potential spies about their intentions in town. The men of the city have a stronger motivation for wanting to "get to know" the strangers than wanting to rape them. It reads more logically if the story is interpreted that the men of Sodom had belligerently desired to interview suspected spies. Ken Collins has a great article dedicated to this on his website ([[3]]), it's quite long though but worth the read. There should be a Conservative vs. Liberal view of the verses. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to wait. Go ahead and do it. --Ephilei (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I scrapped all the entire previous Bible section. It seemed to be lifted from some second rate, personal Bible study what with all the KJV refs, bullet points, summaries, and html tags. I rewrote to use strictly only the most relevant verses and little opinionated commentary. I also drew in other Jewish Bible passages with a better translation. I welcome constructive criticism! --Ephilei (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Slant

It seems to me that only the "Liberal" view is acceptable on this topic. Heaven forbid that we actually desire to know what the Bible says about this topic, especially in light of the fact that the term "Sodomy" is a direct derivation based on the biblical account as outlined in Genesis 19:4-11. To simply delete the entire "Biblical View" section [originally created 4th March 08] highlights the intolerance to an alternative view supported with relavant scripture references. The heart of the reasoned account is the issue of "going after strange flesh". Whether that be male-male, female-female, or angel-female. All of these are shown from the Bible to an abomination to God. If someone wants to put an "alternative" biblical view then start a new heading! Kristos248 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can justify calling the section the "biblical view." The story of Lot clearly does not mention homosexuality or anal intercourse, that is only the interpretation of conservative-minds. It doesn't even make sense, why on earth would all the men of the entire town all of a sudden want to have sex with these particular men? It makes *a lot* more sense that the people (the word used was 'enoshe' which means people and not 'esh' which means men rather than both men and women) of the town wanted to inspect potential spies, men who went straight to a foreigner's house at night (remember, Lot was a newcomer in Sodom). In that area and time, wars were common. As for "strange flesh," at the time Jude was written the word "ekporneusasai" (or "giving themselves over to fornication") meant "giving themselves over to (religious) prostitution." In other words, the people of Sodom "prostituted themselves out," engaging in pagan rituals involving sex with people from other towns or tribes (it would be properly interpreted as "they prostituted themselves out, even pursuing people from other towns."). Since you use the King James version, it makes a little more sense when you realize that "strange" in King James’ day meant "different" or "from elsewhere." The Greek word "heteras" means "another of a different kind." This part of the phrase can't refer to homosexuality, as the adjective would be incorrect. Homosexuality is when one has sex with another of the *same* kind. The Greek word "allos" would have been used in that case. It also can't refer to angels, because angels do not, cannot, and never have had flesh.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia's articles are not here for you to air your opinions, the articles are not suppose to take a stance with one particular point of view (P.O.V.) but rather to show the various views and remain neutral. You inserted your interpretations of the verses and titled it the "biblical view." -- WiccaIrish (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I could reply with, "that is only the interpretation of liberal-minds". The logical answer to the question of why all the men of Sodom desired them was that the angels/men were attractive. You may also be familiar with the term "fresh meat". You may be confused as to why they desired to have [homosexual] sex with them, but Lot wasn't! If you actually take time to read the account in Genesis 9:4-11 you will see that after the men of the city requested that Lot send out the two angels "that we may know them" Lot goes on to say, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes". The fact that his daughters had "not known man" clearly refers to sexual relations. I imagine "your interpretation" of this would be that Lot just desired for his daughters to develop their communication skills with the men of the city.

Lot’s offer of his daughters is defensible: he is offering them in trust to men he calls brothers as hostages to guarantee the conduct of the strangers. Family members were commonly given as hostages to enforce and guarantee agreements, and the Old Testament is filled with examples. This offer is in the spirit of compromise; the hostages are supposed to make the interrogation unnecessary. Lot may have been trying to save his own skin. The surrender of his daughters was simply the most tempting bribe Lot could offer on the spur of the moment to appease the hostile crowd. If he knows that the visitors are divine emissaries, he may believe that his duty to God overrides his duty to his kin, and that it is better to surrender his daughters than to allow the Sodomites to harm the visitors to whom he has offered hospitality. In surrendering the visitors he would incur God's wrath. Lot's position would be justified in Genesis 22 by Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, for which obedience God blesses Abraham. Whereas Isaac is Abraham's heir, Lot's daughters occupy a rather different and less position in terms of their relative value to Lot. Though they may be sexually desirable because of their virginity, and therefore useful for trade, barter, or bribe, or as bearers of children, they are not Lot's heirs.

If the intentions of the people surrounding Lot's house were to rape the visitors most people regard rape as an act of violence rather than a sexual act. As it would be illogical to condemn all heterosexual sexual acts because some people acted abusively, it is also illogical to bring condemnation to all homosexual acts when only some acted irresponsibly. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Lot being a newcomer: I think, if you read the scriptures, you will see that Lot had in fact been resident there for quite some time. But this is a non-issue as the men of the city didn't come to see Lot, but rather the two angels.

Lot is a "sojourner" in Sodom -- in Hebrew, a ger, or, as it were, a resident alien. The Sodomites even point out that Lot's alien status does not give him the right to judge them. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again "your interpretation" is wrong: Strange flesh, from God's perspective refers to "unnatural". If you read through my original "Biblical View" and consider the scriptural references in context this is made clear.

None of the wording in the passage have any implication of homosexuality, but the wording sounds like an anti-parallel to the marriage texts, where the two flesh become one (Gen 2:24, Mk 10:8, I Co 6:16, Eph 5:31). From the perspective that Jude 7 is actually an anti-parallel to the marriage texts, the emphasis is on having sex with a person that is not bone of your bone, and flesh of your flesh, therefore, different flesh. In reading of Jude 7, the passage is an implied support of relationships based on commitment and faithfulness, condemning only the behavior of having sex with whomever one chooses, whenever one wants (going after different flesh), and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

As far as God's perspective that "strange flesh" means "unnatural." This was Paul's perspective, not God. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "your view" that angels "do not, cannot, and never have had flesh", and therefore cannot have sex: once again if you read Genesis 6, Jude 6,7 in context the Bible makes it clear that these angels "kept not their first [heavenly] estate", and that they then took of the daughters of men wives. The resulting offspring of this unnatural union between "strange flesh" were "giants", "mighty men", "men of renown". If you read Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" you will see that it is only the angels of God in heaven that have this restriction. The angels of Genesis 6 are "fallen angels" under Satan's dominion.

The word for "flesh" here is the New Testament technical term for "human nature"; thus we would have angels preempting the baby in the manger in Bethlehem. This interpretation degrades the incarnation of Christ and requires the creation of a new doctrine that angels may take on human nature at any time. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your challenge that "Wikipedia's articles are not here for you to air your opinions, the articles are not suppose to take a stance with one particular point of view (P.O.V.) but rather to show the various views and remain neutral" I would reply that "Wikipedia's articles" are full of opinions and "point[s] of view (P.O.V.)". Much of your refutation above is your POV. At the end of the day everything is a point of view - we just cite different authorities to support our particluar stance. Some will quote other men as their authority, while others quote God's word.

If you want to be semantic I guess this sub-heading should be: "A Biblical View".

I challenge anyone that reads this to consider any particular belief they hold, and with what supporting authority it is based. Even a, so called, scientific belief is still based on how the data is "interpreted".

Original thread "Biblical View": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodomy&diff=214356354&oldid=214040549 Kristos248 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reply on Ocatecir's talk page was: "I would encourage you to consider that this sub-heading "Biblical View" was created, and stood essentially in its entirity for over two months prior to being completely deleted and replaced with "Bible"." You initially created this section February 29, 2008. The first revision (to the summary of your section) was by 82.95.132.238 on March 13, 2008 which you undid the following day. The next time it was removed by me on May 4, 2008 which you undid May 16, 2008. In fact, the Sodomy page was the very first article you edited since the creation of your account.

You have a history of POV edits. On the page Islam, on March 11, 2008 you added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=prev&oldid=197598944. Then on March 17, 2008 you made this edit to the page 1000000000: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1000000000_(number)&diff=prev&oldid=198986129. Then June 15, 2008 on the page Zionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=219623375&oldid=219371352. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Judaism / Gentiles

Laws of sodomy for gentiles is slacker than it is for Jews. Whereas both anal sex and oral sex is to be avoided for Jewish homosexuals, only anal sex is required to be avoided for gentile homosexuals. Lesbianism is allowed, but not encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.12.77 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For credibility this discussion should use Bible texts recognized by the various houses of faith in Judaism and not texts from the 1500's Protestant Reformation such as the "King James Version" which has its own sphere of influence via the Enlightenment era in Europe. If you want to quote Jewish texts there are plenty to choose from, such as the JPS versions, modern Hebrew, or ancient copies from Aleppo, Leningrad Codex, or even the Dead Sea Scrolls. Theses are all classical texts studied for centuries, interpreted using sundry exegetical methods, and expounded in the Journals and local meeting places of worship. User bwildasi Sun Jun 29 13:38:28 UTC 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.50.80 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oral Sex

I believe that 'oral sex' should be placed alongside bestiality and anal sex in the general summary. Virtually every encyclopedia and dictionary consider 'oral sex' a chief facet of the definition.

• ' sodomy (n.) carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal : noncoital carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex; specifically : the penetration of the male organ into the mouth or anus of another' - Merriam-Webster

• ' sodomy (n.) sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation' - Integrated Macintosh Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.91.77 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"virtually every" .... US-American -- please take into consideration that the English Wikipedia is used world wide, and oral sex has nothing to do with sodomy in the understand of the rest of the (English speaking) world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.130.54 (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oral and anal sex belong to sodomy only in the USA. In the rest of the world sodomy doesn't inlcude oral and anal sex between a man and a woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-felix (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sodomy refers to non-procreative sex, not just homosexual sex!

Most, if not all, American sodomy laws once covered non-procreative sex between heterosexuals. And, even in recent times, heterosexuals have been convicted for sodomy in America, including a married couple who performed oral sex.

The article needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.112 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Root meaning of the word "sodomy"

Sodomy is by nature 'excessive fornication what leads to the pursuit of flesh for unnatural purposes.' The secularizing of sodomy undermines Christian faith and encourages the defiant and unruly behavior of sexual predators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonius monk (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

ONLY ASK YOURSELF THIS , WHEN U LOOK AT NATURE,HOW MUCH DOES SODOMY OCCOUR?? ANIMALS ,INSECTS,FISH,DO NOT HAVE THIS NATURE!! WHY DO WE?? ARE WE SUPPOST TA BE;(POLITE) IN-OUT,PREGENATE?? IF SO; WHERES THE LOVE COME INTO IT?? I WILL AGREE THAT MAN WILL NOT SLEEP WITH ANOTHER MAN;HOWEVER I FEEL THAT IS MISWROTE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WROTE ; 'MAN WILL NOT SODOMISE ANOTHER MAN FOR HIS DESIRES,NOR PLEASURE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.159.254.119 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1