The religious deal with homosexuality
I set out trying to learn a little bit about the arguments against gay marriage because I believe it should not be illegal. (As a side note, my boyfriend would like you all to know that I’m not gay.) But I found many of the arguments were rooted in the Bible.
I decided to focus the entirety of my first “I Want to Know” post on the religious arguments against homosexuality. I chose to ignore any historical context (unless directly supplied by the text from Bible Gateway) because many religious people base their beliefs on text alone. What does God have to say about this?
Many advocates of “traditional” marriage (i.e., defined as between a man and a woman) quote passages from the Bible to support their reasoning.
Leviticus 18 is basically a list of all of the sexual abominations a man (and woman) should never commit in the eyes of the Lord. Some are still considered pretty uncouth today, like cheating on your wife and the such. Verse 19 has this to say about homosexual relations:
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.
That does seem to offer some religious ground for the abhorrence of homosexuality. Of course, this one came from the New International Version which has been translated through many, many languages (as all English translations of the Bible are).
On an interesting, but slightly unrelated note, Levitcus 18:19 says:
Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
Although, how many people today would consider a woman unclean because she’s menstruating? Hasn’t that thought been abandoned, or are there still sects of people in the world who won’t do it based on their religion? There’s nothing wrong with that, but I hope they’re the same sects who abhor homosexuality. To ignore verse 19 would be silly if you’re using verse 22 to condemn homosexuals. (I can understand how sleeping with someone of my gender when she has her monthly visitor is just not a turn-on, but if they’re not using the Bible to back that reasoning up, then isn’t it just hypocritical?)
The New King James version explicitly berates homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
However, “homosexuals” was qualified as catamites. According to our favorite on-line dictionary, Webster, a catamite is:
A boy kept by a pederast.
I had the same reaction as many of you: what exactly is a pederast? Well, Webster had an answer to that one, too, and the definition brings images of the recent Catholic priest scandal to mind:
One who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.
My first reaction is, “Eww.” But in all fairness,I thought that, perhaps, the New King James Version was the culprit in misinterpreting this passage and decided to qualify its use of a homosexual as someone who rapes boys. But what if the other versions of the Bible conveniently overlooked this particular reference and decided to paint all homosexuals with the same broad strokes?
Of course, even the New Testament has something to say about homosexuality. Romans 1:27 in the New International Version reads:
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
I could not find any qualifying remarks for that passage. It was written by Paul who spoke of a nation that God had condemned for their immoral ways. I don’t know what “received in themselves” actually means here, but maybe it does not speak to a physical punishment, but rather an emotional state?
I find that these Bible passages only raised more questions about the fight against homosexuality. As noted with the King James Version, the use of the English word “homosexual” may actually be hiding the original connotations in Hebrew. I’m not very sure. I did learn that it’s hard to base your belief on a single verse in the Bible, but many people hold to these need to be correct. What do you think?
This post is part of the weekly I Want to Know series on this blog.
Posted on November 8th, 2006 by Joy
Filed under: God, Homosexuality, Religion, Want to Know
I feel that too many people depend on their religion to make choices for them instead of thinking it for themselves. I feel some people just follow the word of whatever they believe and go with that because it’s easier then having to make their own opinion and defend it. For some it’s much easier to say “because the bible says so.”
I feel anyone should be allowed to be married. Who are we to say what’s right and wrong? I mean, didn’t God say not to judge others?
ANO - I found that to be true, too. God says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I didn’t see any qualifying verses.
Personally, I have problems with the very idea of religion basing its teachings on literal interpretations of an extremely old book. Which isn’t to discount the good ideas that can be found in the book (treat others nicely kids, etc.) but the fact that you have to rely on handwritten translations made by monks who may or may not have been fluent in the language they were translating from/to.
So far, I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence that being gay or allowing gay marriage will:
A) Cause the inevitable end of life as we know it
B) Make my kids any different than who they are already
C) Cause Team Rocket to stop protecting the world from devastation.
I think that if there is a benign (key word being benign) god, he/she/it/them/etc would want the people [pronouns here] watches over to be as happy and peaceful as possible. If that includes being with someone of the same gender, well, if that’s what makes them happy.
Rylan — Well, you know, 1/2 of Team Rocket is undeniably gay. Which half, I’m not really sure, but you can make the argument that James is just effeminate. And I agree with you, the fact that monks translated something doesn’t mean they were fluent. But then again, there are scholars today who are fluent in both English and Hebrew, so we can’t be sure.
check out the book: what the bible really says about homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X
leviticus should, in my opinion, never be used to show how we should behave today, because, as you point out, much of it we now consider out-dated. for example, if you read leviticus carefully, there would be no american football.
paul should, again in my opinion, always be taken with a grain of salt as his views are often … shall we say extreme? particularly in relation to women … but there are TONS of critiques of paul out there.
as for translation issues, there are many, many such issues, a great many of which cropped up with the first king james edition and were added quite deliberately at the time. see “priests for equality” for a treatment of this issue.
peace,
ender
Hey ender,
Thanks for visiting. Yes, Leviticus is just outdated. American football. I always considered that just a slightly less dangerous evolution of gladiator games, but I guess that could be a stress.
Yes, God did say not to judge others, but what’s wrong is wrong. Just because he said that, does that mean we should let murderers and child molesters go free. Many people are under the impression that God is some lovey-dovey spirit who waits in heaven to welcome the “good persons” amongst us. Well if those people read the Bible, they’d realise that God doesn’t play. There’s a reason he’s called our Eternal Father. And like any parent, he metes out punishment.
Leon — I’ve read the Bible, and we are supposed to “love our neighbors as ourselves.” It does not say to condone our neighbors if we think what they’re doing is abhorrent. Of course, there aren’t many passages in the Bible that actually reference homosexuality, and I thought there might be a historical context to the ones who do. I honestly don’t know much about the topic, which is why I decided to do a small amount of research on it. Thank you so much for your opinion. Please come again.
Not all religious people who oppose gay marriage do so based on scripture– or not on scripture alone. A lot more depends on your understanding of the nature of man-in-the-world — what might be called Christian anthropology. If you believe that the family unit (mom, dad and the kids) is the basis of society, it follows that you will argue that a strong and stable society requires marriage — the union of a man and a woman and that chances are good that children will come of that union.
I think it’s important to remember, too, that homosexuality and gay marriage are two different topics. Even if you supported your gay friends, it does not necessarily follow that you will think marriage can apply to two people of the same gender.
Hey Ruth Joy (yay! Another person with part of my name),
Thanks for visiting. You’re right. Supporting homosexual friends does not necessarily mean that I support gay marriage, which is not a point I had thought about. (The difference, at least.) While mom, dad, and kids are the basis for a traditional society, my psychology textbook cites studies that show that children raised by homosexual couples are not swayed either way, generally. They’re just about as normal (or not) as the rest of us.
Christianity and Homosexuality…
In the very first Carnival of Citizens, there is a post at HeartFulls (a blog with which I was not previously familiar) in which the author wants to know how Christians deal with homosexuality. She seems to be particularly concerned with the question o…
Still, kids being raised by gay couples is separate from the issue of marriage.
Ruth — Are you okay with them raising their children as long as they’re not married?
Leon and Ruth Joy - very good answers.
As for homosexuality, the bible does say we are to love one another and not judge. Just because we Christians/Jews abhor their sexual lives (homosexuals, prostitutes, etc.) doesn’t mean that we don’t still love the person, just the act. We’re not necessarily judging them. If I saw a man raping/beating a child/woman/man, you can best believe that I’m going to do all that is in my power to stop him. That doesn’t mean I’ve judged him either. It simply means that I am trying to stop something that is wrong; biblically and morally wrong. We base our morals on the bible, exactly what this country was founded on. God is the judge and ruler.
If we give in and let the minority who squeal the loudest have their way, eventually it will break down our society as we know it and become extinct. If there are no more man/woman marriages, how will the world keep reproducing? The United States is eventually going to ‘Politically Correct’ itself out of existence.
May God continue to Bless America.
Beverley-Thank you for your response. I like your approach: we can abhor acts, not people.
And speaking to your “there are no more man/woman marriages, how will the world keep reproducing?” — I did read a book once that outlined a human race that lived for hundreds of years. The planet was overpopulated, so people were genetically manipulated to be homosexual.
I agree that we should separate the person from the deed Or as they used to say, love the sinner, hate the sin. But notice that you are judging when you say that — you’re talking about sin, or if not sin, at least you’re acknowledging that there’s something that you are agreeing to overlook while you love the person.
The Bible doesn’t really say not to judge. It just reminds us that we should judge ourselves as well. The typical scriptural reference here is Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. But notice that Christ goes on to tell the woman that her sin has been forgiven. He judged and forgave. That’s the model.
Beverly - You mentioned that society would eventually break down if we allowed the minority(ies) who squeal the loudest have their way. I can see where you’re coming from, but I can think of a few moments in history where a minority that squealed (squeaked perhaps?) and got their way ended up doing something enormous and important: American Revolution (American Revolt if you must); Annexation of Hawaii to the United States; Feminist Movement; the Nazi Party’s rise to power (restoring the economy of post WWI Germany); Brown v. BOE; etc. The point of all this is that a minority that is screaming for change doesn’t always end up destroying the society they reside in. Sometimes, they may end up changing it for the better.
On a personal note, I think that we as humans are capable of deciding for other people what right or wrong is. I don’t think that I could go up to anyone and outlaw them from being a jerk. Now, if his jerkism was endangering me or the society at large (i.e. murder, rape, theft in some cases, etc) that would be perfectly acceptable to outlaw, and I think that the majority of the population would agree with my choice.
It was mentioned that homosexuals can’t reproduce. I completely agree. They can’t reproduce, except through artificial means (and that’s not what I’m talking about). And, thus, their lack of reproduction would be an endangerment to human society at large, or so it seems. However, with over six billion people on the planet, with a small minority being homosexual, I seriously doubt that an infinitesimal drop in human-making is going to do the world any harm.
[...] However, watching it again makes me realize just how offensive the show could be to the atheists and the religious alike. For all of you who have never seen “Joan,” God takes the form of humans to speak to her. God could be anyone from a little old lady waiting at a bus stop to a punk rocker with spiky hair and nose rings. Or, even, an effeminate secretary who works in the vice principal’s office of Joan’s school. That’s right. The writers had God take on the form of a character that could, decidedly, be gay. And we all know how much some religious people like that. [...]