
Michael> The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is
Michael> that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket
Michael> equation of homosexual behavior and rape.  Since Christians
Michael> citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have
Michael> at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge
Michael> that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

and

Michael>  It is just
Michael> as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a
Michael> secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate
Michael> homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the
Michael> rape of God's messengers.

Let's review the Sodom and Gomorrah story briefly.  It states
clearly that the visitors were angels.  But "all the men from every
part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the
house.  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.' " 

For the rest of the story the angels are referred to by the men
of Sodom and by Lot as *men*.  Furthermore we know from Gen 18:20,21
that the Lord had already found Sodom guilty of grievous sin--before
the angels visited the city.  It is clear that the grievous sin
of Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexual sex.  It appears that
the men had become so inflamed in their lust that they had
group orgies in the public square--which simply indicates 
the extremity of their depravity.  It does not show that lesser 
degrees of homosexuality are not sinful, as Michael would have us
believe.

Ultimately our understanding of God's will for sexuality comes from
the creation story--not solely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  He
created us male and female, and instituted marriage as a relationship
between one male and one female, "Therefore a man will leave his
father and mother, and be united with his wife, and they will become
one flesh."  This marriage relationship is the only sexual
relationship which God blesses and sanctions. He regulates and
protects the marriage of man and woman, and even uses it as a picture
of the relationship between himself and his church.  But we find not
one word of blessing or regulation for a sexual relationship between 
two men, or between two women.

Everything else that we find in the Bible about sexuality derives from
or expresses God's will in instituting and blessing marriage.  Thus
the Levitical code, which was given only to the Jews, forbade incest,
homosexuality, bestiality; the Ten Commandments forbade adultery and
the coveting of our neighbor's wife; other commandments forbade rape.
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded as sexually immoral and
perverse (Jude 7) because they abandoned and/or polluted the marriage
relationship.  Thus also Paul regarded homosexuality as `unnatural',
Romans 1:26,27--not because this was simply Paul's opinion,
but because it was contrary to God's purpose in creating us
male and female.
  
Michael> Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here
Michael> and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they
Michael> ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously
Michael> have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL
Michael> ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest
Michael> charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
Michael> manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they
Michael> suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss
Michael> our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what
Michael> it is.

Really, have you no better response to `slander' than more
slander?