San Francisco - come for the sodomy, stay for the HIV

[capitalcity]

Super.

San Francisco may be world's gayest city: report

Apr 7, 7:30 PM (ET)
By Adam Tanner
Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO- New statistics suggest San Francisco has the highest percentage of gay men among major cities in the world, with a quarter of them HIV-positive, a top city health official said on Friday.

"Despite an overall loss in the population in San Francisco in the last five years, we think there has been an absolute gain in gay men," William McFarland, head of HIV/AIDS statistics at San Francisco's Department of Public Health, said in an interview. "From all the data I have seen ... it's the gayest city in the world."

McFarland has compiled the city's first survey in five years on gay men and HIV to be presented at a meeting next week to discuss HIV/AIDS prevention.

He said it found an estimated 63,577 gay males aged 15 and above in San Francisco, a city with a total population of 764,000. That figure represents nearly one in five of the city's males above the age of 15.

0ne out of every four gay males -- 25.8 percent -- is infected with the HIV virus, giving San Francisco an estimated total of 16,401 HIV-positive men, said McFarland, an epidemiologist who has also worked on studies in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Egypt.

The survey indicates that the overall percentage of those living with HIV has dropped since the last study five years ago.

"The major changes since 2001 are that, first of all, the gay community has grown. It's largely been an influx of more HIV-negative gay men that are here," he said. "It used to be near 30 percent.

"The absolute number of gay men living with HIV has crept up partly because of ongoing transmission and partly because of improved survival with treatment," he added.

At 40 percent, Baltimore has the highest percentage of HIV-positive men among its population in a study of five cities, with San Francisco second, according to a 2005 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.

In coming up with his estimate of the number of gay men, McFarland said he took the middle point of nine previous studies.

McFarland acknowledged that it was difficult to get a precise number because of sensitivities over the issue. But he said San Francisco residents were likely to be more open about their sexuality than people in many other areas.

[Drbio]

Sodom and Gomorrah had the same affliction. And yes....it is an affliction.

[orangedays]

At 40 percent, Baltimore has the highest percentage of HIV-positive men among its population in a study of five cities, with San Francisco second, according to a 2005 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.

Geez...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Sodom and Gomorrah had the same affliction. And yes....it is an affliction.

no, you are wrong.

the hebrew in the passage says nothing about homosexuality, and in fact the talmud speaks of the "sins" of "the cities of the plain" being economic (lack of caring/sharing with those without) and being inhospitable to strangers, in spite of their wealth. the actions of the mob trying to enter lot's house and find the "strangers" (the angels) reinforces this interpertation. in fact, the mob wasn't all men, and the mob was not aware of the sex of the strangers.

the twisting of the sodom and gemorrah fable is merely an attempt to legitimize the persecution of homosexuals imho.

[dalmations202]

The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.

Per wikipedia...........

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.

Per wikipedia...........

Do you understand how Wikipedia works?

[dalmations202]

I have a full understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah from the Bible. I know where the term sodomy came from. To say that Sodomy is not said to be wrong -- via the bible -- is just someone trying to justify their own humanistic desires.

And to say that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is "merely an attempt to legitimize the persecution of homosexuals" is purely someones attempt to discount the laws of God.

Lev 18:22 leaves no question.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I have a full understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah from the Bible. I know where the term sodomy came from. To say that Sodomy is not said to be wrong -- via the bible -- is just someone trying to justify their own humanistic desires.

And to say that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is "merely an attempt to legitimize the persecution of homosexuals" is purely someones attempt to discount the laws of God.

Lev 18:22 leaves no question.

It's not surprising to observe that if you would take a Wikipedia entry without any critical analysis of where it came from, or the context in which it was written, or credibility of the writer, that you'd do the same with the Bible.

[MavKikiNYC]

As for Wikipedia, I think it's a very interesting resource and sometimes find myself consulting it several times a day. But the point is that people can pretty much write anything on there, as the article below shows.

As information it's interesting. As authoritative information, .....like a lot of things, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

A false Wikipedia 'biography'By John Seigenthaler

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more:

"John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984," Wikipedia said. "He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.

I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice.

At my request, executives of the three websites now have removed the false content about me. But they don't know, and can't find out, who wrote the toxic sentences.

Anonymous author
I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have any way to know who wrote that?"

"No, we don't," he said. Representatives of the other two websites said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual.

Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.

But searching cyberspace for the identity of people who post spurious information can be frustrating. I found on Wikipedia the registered IP (Internet Protocol) number of my "biographer"- 65-81-97-208. I traced it to a customer of BellSouth Internet. That company advertises a phone number to report "Abuse Issues." An electronic voice said all complaints must be e-mailed. My two e-mails were answered by identical form letters, advising me that the company would conduct an investigation but might not tell me the results. It was signed "Abuse Team."

Wales, Wikipedia's founder, told me that BellSouth would not be helpful. "We have trouble with people posting abusive things over and over and over," he said. "We block their IP numbers, and they sneak in another way. So we contact the service providers, and they are not very responsive."

After three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team investigation, I phoned BellSouth's Atlanta corporate headquarters, which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth's counsel. My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer." Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name.

Little legal recourse
Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.

Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace. Wikipedia's website acknowledges that it is not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in a recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors (he said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.

My experience refutes that. My "biography" was posted May 26. On May 29, one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early." For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for three more weeks.

In the C-Span interview, Wales said Wikipedia has "millions" of daily global visitors and is one of the world's busiest websites. His volunteer community runs the Wikipedia operation, he said. He funds his website through a non-profit foundation and estimated a 2006 budget of "about a million dollars."

And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them.

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."

For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.

John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, founded The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. He also is a former editorial page editor at USA TODAY.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, you are wrong.

the hebrew in the passage says nothing about homosexuality, and in fact the talmud speaks of the "sins" of "the cities of the plain" being economic (lack of caring/sharing with those without) and being inhospitable to strangers, in spite of their wealth. the actions of the mob trying to enter lot's house and find the "strangers" (the angels) reinforces this interpertation. in fact, the mob wasn't all men, and the mob was not aware of the sex of the strangers.

the twisting of the sodom and gemorrah fable is merely an attempt to legitimize the persecution of homosexuals imho.

Your understanding of the story is flawed.

"Before they (the angels) had gone to bed, 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." - Genesis 19: 4-5

Contrary to what you suggested, the scripture makes it clear that:

1. The mob consisted of men;
2. The mob was aware of the sex of the strangers; and
3. The mob (of men) wanted to rape the strangers (who were men).

Odd that you would call it a "fable", as if it didn't really happen.

If a person doesn't accept the Bible as authoritative in their life, that's one thing. But to say that the Bible is unclear about homosexuality is another thing.

[Mavdog]

kg, you are quoting from the king james verson, correct?

it is more credible (imho) to look at the hebrew words as they are in the torah. they do not parallel the choice of words in the KJV.

I am not attempting to claim that there is no statements against homosexuality anywhere in the old testament, merely that the claim that the people of sodom were homosexuals isn't supported by the definition of the hebrew words.

and yes, the old testament is full of fables that are teaching us how to live.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.

Per wikipedia...........

OK, if you wish to use wikipedia as a reference....

The view of Josephus
Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote:

"Now, about this time the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from Him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward." Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195

Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house"

The traditional interpretation of this story largely stems from the gender biased translation of the word enoshe Hebrew word #582 in Strong's in Genesis 19:4. Most versions say "men", which is incorrect. The Hebrew word enoshe is not gender-specific; it indicates mortals or people. The word esh would have been used to mean "man" or eshal to mean "woman" if gender specific terminology was meant. This translation gives the impression that just the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and the further impression that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. The word enoshe is used in Genesis 17:23 with the word zechar meaning "male" demonstrating this point.

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha specifically refers to homosexual coitus, with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. Based on this interpretation, we lack conclusive grounds to assume that the men of Sodom only wanted to rape the visitors. We simply know that their intentions were unfriendly.

Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated "men" is again enoshe which, literally translated, means "mortal". This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were? However if the sin was rape, and the rapists were indiscriminate, then the sex of the strangers would not matter.

Note that these women that Lot offered were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded in another way that Lot was offering his daughters as virgin sacrifices to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors. By 50 AD, we find the first time that the sin of Sodom is associated with homosexual "acts" in general. In the Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin ("Questions and Answers on Genesis") IV.31-37, Philo interpreted the Genesis word yãdhÃ* as "servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg, you are quoting from the king james verson, correct?

I believe that quote was from the New International Version.

it is more credible (imho) to look at the hebrew words as they are in the torah. they do not parallel the choice of words in the KJV.

We can do that. Contrary to what the wikipedia article that you cited suggests, the word "enoshe" is not gender neutral. According to Strong's Concordance, it is a masculine noun meaning a man or men, collectively.

The word "yada" does have multiple meanings (as our English word "know" does). The wikipedia article, however, is incorrect to suggest that it isn't used to refer to sexual intercourse. For example, in Genesis 24:16, the word "yada" is used when describing Rebekah as a virgin whom no man had "known".

I think it's a much bigger stretch to try and read the text another way.

I am not attempting to claim that there is no statements against homosexuality anywhere in the old testament, merely that the claim that the people of sodom were homosexuals isn't supported by the definition of the hebrew words.

Well, I think the term sodomy actually refers to deviant sexual activity, not just homosexuality. I would agree with you that we don't know if the whole city was homosexual or anything like that, but we do know that, according to the Bible, they were sinful and sexually perverted.

and yes, the old testament is full of fables that are teaching us how to live.

Are you suggesting that the story about Sodom and Gomorrah was made up and didn't actually happen?

[chumdawg]

The main thing I garner from my reading on this topic is that if the people requested by all the men, young and old, of Sodom were females...then it wouldn't have been such a big deal, as far as the homophobes among us are concerned.

Rape the women, that's okay. That's at least natural. Rape the men, and we have a problem.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The main thing I garner from my reading on this topic is that if the people requested by all the men, young and old, of Sodom were females...then it wouldn't have been such a big deal, as far as the homophobes among us are concerned.

Rape the women, that's okay. That's at least natural. Rape the men, and we have a problem.

Can you point to where someone said that rape was okay? Or was this another one of your hit and run Political Forum posts?

[chumdawg]

The discussion, as I understood it, was on whether the word in question was gender-neutral or if it referred to the male gender. There seemed to be spirited disagreement on that question. The implication I got was that it wasn't the rape that was what condemned Sodom, it was the gay sex.

In other words, it came across to me as this: It wasn't important that they would rape the visitors, it was important that the visitors were male.

I'll stick around for this one, just so I don't hit and run.

[kg_veteran]

According to the Bible, it was sin and wickedness that condemned Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact, Abraham tried to negotiate with God to save Sodom and Gomorrah, but in the end he could not find even 10 righteous people in the entire city.

The reason I was debating the term with Mavdog was not to suggest that homosexuality alone was what condemned the city, but rather to clarify what I understand the text to mean in this case, which is that the men of the city wanted to rape the visitors, who were also male.

I'm out for the night, but I'll be happy to discuss it with you further tomorrow.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The reason I was debating the term with Mavdog was not to suggest that homosexuality alone was what condemned the city, but rather to clarify what I understand the text to mean in this case, which is that the men of the city wanted to rape the visitors, who were also male.

Do you appreciate the cultural connotations of your understanding, if your understanding is indeed correct? Do you claim to know the full reason Sodom was, according to the Bible, destroyed? Do you do attribute Sodom's desctruction in whole or only in part to the sins cited in the verse that has the men of the town demanding to rape the visitors of Lot? If you attribute it only in part, in what proportion of liability do you represent the other sins of which the city was guilty?

I await your answers.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Do you appreciate the cultural connotations of your understanding, if your understanding is indeed correct?

I'm not sure there are any "cultural connotations." Clearly, homosexuality was one of the things going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Do you claim to know the full reason Sodom was, according to the Bible, destroyed?

If we're talking about what the Bible says, then yes.

Do you do attribute Sodom's desctruction in whole or only in part to the sins cited in the verse that has the men of the town demanding to rape the visitors of Lot? If you attribute it only in part, in what proportion of liability do you represent the other sins of which the city was guilty?

What I know is what the Bible says.

"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." - Genesis 13:13

" Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." - Genesis 18: 20-21

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: 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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." - Ezekiel 16: 49-50

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." - Jude 1:7

Additionally, Jesus repeatedly uses Sodom and Gomorrah as a symbol of sin and wickedness in his teachings.

So, to answer your question, I think there were probably many sins being committed by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, it is also clear that sexual immorality and perversion (which, according to the Bible, includes homosexuality) were probably among the main sins.

As for your question about "proportion of liability", my response would be that I can't speak for God, but I know that he hates all sin.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

We can do that. Contrary to what the wikipedia article that you cited suggests, the word "enoshe" is not gender neutral. According to Strong's Concordance, it is a masculine noun meaning a man or men, collectively.

let me get this straight, you are using a christian interpertation source to confirm a christian interpertation?

Are you suggesting that the story about Sodom and Gomorrah was made up and didn't actually happen?

the torah is not seen as fact, it is seen as the truth. there is a difference.

the stories are not viewed as factually to have happened, the lesson of the story is what is important.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

let me get this straight, you are using a christian interpertation source to confirm a christian interpertation?

I think that Strong's is a pretty well-known and accepted concordance. The wikipedia article cited it, albeit incorrectly.

If you have another source that says differently, I suppose we can discuss that.

the torah is not seen as fact, it is seen as the truth. there is a difference.

the stories are not viewed as factually to have happened, the lesson of the story is what is important.

Well, yeah, I get the difference. You have a better grasp on Jewish beliefs regarding Sodom and Gomorrah than I do, but I know that most Christians believe that Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened.

[chumdawg]

KG, I think the "cultural connotations," as it were, are vital to our understanding of Genesis 19. Clearly there was something else going besides homosexuality, the way we use that word in modern society. Unless you want to contend that every man in Sodom was gay (which I think is going to be a difficult claim to uphold), you have to consider the fact that every man, young and old, in the whole city lined up to have sex with the angels.

Why would straight men want to join in the rape of the angels? I've read some arguments that in that historical era, rape had other connotations besides what it does today. Part of those have to do with the way women were viewed in that time. Part of it has to do with spoils of war. Part of it has to beliefs held at that time having to do with assuming the virility of another.

Evidently Lot, the righteous person he was, did the right thing when he offered up his daughters for the mob to do with as they please. That should say something about cultural context, too.

And if it doesn't, then we have the rest of the chapter to deal with, where Lot's daughters basically rape *him*, so that they can bear his child. If that's not from a different cultural context, I don't know what is!

As you pointed out, in other parts of the Bible Sodom's sinfulness is characterized in a quite different way. And then you have Ezekiel, where God condemns Israel as being worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, for different kinds of sin.

My contention is that if you want to use the Bible to claim that God condemns sexuality, you should stick to other, more relevant passages. Clearly there is much more going on in Genesis 19 than the circumstances in which we talk about homosexuality today.