While Original Position might be right that lagtight is being intentionally insulting, he has consistently at least presented ITT as them being innocent. His initial reaction was to deny they were derogatory or offensive, then was unaware of what the word homophobic meant, and is now denying that the terms are pejorative.

Lagtight,
1) Do you now acknowledge that calling people sodomites IS a pejorative, is derogatory, and is homophobic? I'm not asking if you care that it is, but whether you acknowledge the connotations this word had.
2) If yes to the above, what argument do you have for choosing the offensive word in your speech vs socially acceptable words. I'm not asking you to hold back on espousing the disgusting views your religion holds towards gays, that would be unreasonable, I'm asking what argument you have for not expressing those views in more acceptable language.

It is also worth noting that lagtight has now shifted the conversation. For a while we were using the word sodomite in a meta sense of whether sodomite is an appropriate word to say. As the conversation shifted to LGBT rights, he has now repeatedly used the word as a reference for gay people, such as:"I believe that sodomites should have the same rights as everyone else". Shame on you. In this context I would have temp banned you as well, just as if you had said the same thing with the n-word in its place.

I didn't mean for the example to be condescending. I use it because I think it makes my point very clear with regard to the meaning words carry beyond any dictionary definitions, and also that pretending not to know the rest of the meaning are thinly veiled at best. Plus I have fun taking digs at Thatcher and toffs.

And to Uke, this is the progression that can be predicted with an amazing level of accuracy. We get some esoteric definition of sodomite which is in no way pejorative, and then, miraculously, out of the ether, materialise a host of homophobic ideas and opinions. If these connotations weren't so connected to the term I expect we'd see a lot less correlation.

We're on the same page there then. Come on you owls!

So you're aware that it comes from Sodom which was punished for (and this is the bit that seems a little vague and somewhat creatively interpreted to me) presumed homosexual sins. I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, god is quoted (back before he became strangely reticent, when used to say a lot of things to people all the time) ) as saying that the sin of Sodom was that "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." (Ezekiel 16:48–50) He never mentions homosexuality, and neither does Jesus as far as I'm aware.

Seems like more biblical cherry picking by homophobes to me.

I always like the bit where Lot offers his daughters to be gangraped in place of the disguised angels. The townsmen refuse. Then a wife is turned into a pillar of salt. And then the daughters rape their father. Just a lovely story all round.

However, leviticus is pretty clear about the OT position on homosexuality (and many other typically forgotten things).

As if you have any clue about what you are trying to talk about.

Beats me. I never really thought about it one way or another. I've never had a reason not to use "black" or "African-American."

I have a reason for using sodomite: it is the word that the KJV Bible uses to describe a specific sexual sin.

No, it's the word that the KJV Bible uses for people who are from the city of Sodom. There are only four uses in the King James Bible (at least according to the link below -- I'm open that there may be others as I did not do an exhaustive search) and none of them use it specifically to identify a sexual sin.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Sodomites/

That is a good point. The term sodomy is derived from the bible, not specifically used there.

And why the motivation for touting specifically the KJV?

This is the reason:

----

Edit: Was this more of a "piling on" statement or a challenge to the current line of conversation? I couldn't tell.

Is this question for me?

I was giving my reason for using the word "sodomite", since it is derived from the KJV, which is the translation that I use.

No, I wasn't clear on what FZ was saying.

First, you've shifted your position to being "derived" from the KJV. Second, you're still wrong. Various references point to the word pre-existing the KJV, so that the KJV isn't authoritative in the connotation/denotation of the word. Third, there are theological disagreements about the nature of the sins of Sodom, but that's for an entirely different conversation.

After doing some research on this matter, I believe that all three of these points of yours are true.

The word sodomy never occurs in the KJV, but the word sodomite occurs once (Deuteronomy 23:17) and the word sodomites occurs four times (1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7). (My source is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)

The "sins of Sodom" almost certainly included sexual sins, but were not necessarily limited to those kinds of sins.

The term sodomy was indeed derived from the KJV, and can be used as a specific reference to same-sex activity. (For example, so-called "Sodomy laws" in certain locales are typically [if not universally] laws against same-sex activity.)

So, since there aren't a lot of citizens of Sodom around any more, these days a sodomite would be in reference to someone who engages in the sin of sodomy.

In this very post you use a more currently appropriate term of "same-sex activity". Indeed, if you support equal rights as you claim you presumably oppose the homophobic anti-sodomy laws which are now politically out of favour and part of why "sodomy" as a term is out of favour. And you are noting here how words evolving their connotation as it changed from residents of sodom, who did many sins perhaps same sex acitivities among them, to now referring to people who engage in same sex activity.

So why not just use a term that isn't socially considered homophobic? Your "same-sex activity" is sufficient to refer to the same action your religion embarrassingly labels an abomination. KJV espouses a claimed truth about the status of the activity as a sin, but not what it necessarily has to be called, it is fairly no comment about that. Unless, as Original Position seemingly falsely believed, your intention is to be pejorative.

This dialogue prompted me to do some research, and as a result I plan to stop using the words sodomy and sodomite and will probably instead use "same-sex activity" or something like that.

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this topic.

"Iron sharpens iron."

:thumbsup:

This is false. The word (with various connotations) predates the KJV. Depending on how you trace the language...

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sodomy

https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com...-surprise-you/

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/sodom.htm

The best you can say is that the word coheres with your intended meaning. But the meaning does derive from the KJV. The KJV does not literally use Sodomite in the way you understand it. It uses it to refer to people from Sodom. The meaning that you're using does not come from the KJV, but from language usage that predates the KJV.

+1

Vintage. ****ing. Aaron.

The impotent behavior police would like to take the time to remind everyone that it disapproves of certain behaviors.

Yep, and just one of multiple incidents of barbarity and cruelty that can only be defended by biblical literalists with a shoulder shrug and resort to what I call the 'mysterious ways' argument.

Yes it is, but that's unrelated to Sodom so they can't offer it as a justification.

Post him a sound effects tantrum. That'll show 'em.

In another thread I learned that animal sacrifices are over because the crucifixion took care of atonement.

Since we don't need to burn chickens anymore, does that mean we don't have to burn gays either? I mean the sodomites?

Serious question. If sacrificing Jesus atoned for sin, why is it still our job to stigmatize gays? What is the theological justification? Seems like the big guy has that handled.

This is a misunderstanding of the atonement. Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is supposed to have taken the punishment due to Christians for their sinful actions upon himself. That doesn't mean that putatively sinful actions such as lying, adultery, or homosexual acts are not still sinful and so against God's command.

For someone who spends a lot of time Judeo-Christian bashing, you seem to have some real fundamental ignorance about the basics of the religion(s).