The homophobic verses

[Frozenwolf150]

Homophobia is an issue that frequently comes up in religious debate. On several occasions I have posed the question as to why people believe as they do, that certain individuals must be condemned for their sexual orientation. Yet I've gotten no response other than ad hoc justification. I've sought to explore the question, familiar to some of you I'm sure, does this bigotry originate in scripture? If so, which verses? What do they mean in their original context?

The verses most frequently cited are Genesis 19 and the destruction of Sodom, Leviticus 18 and the sexual prohibitions, Romans 1 in the letters of Paul, and one could argue 1 Corinthians. These are the most toxic, with the worst political implications.

We start with the story of Sodom. God wanted to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah unless a single virtuous man could be found within. He sent his angels ahead, and they were taken in by Lot. This story illustrates the ancient rule of hospitality. If a stranger came to your house, you had to take them in. Travel was a treacherous ordeal, as there were no roadsigns or markers, and no hotels or restaurants along the way. Hospitality was a matter of life and death, and showing it to a road-weary traveler was a sign you were a civilized person. As a traveler, your life depended on the kindness of strangers.

What does this have to do with sexual morality? In 19:5, the townspeople come knocking on Lot's door asking him to send the two men out so they can sexually abuse them. But now wait. Consider Lot's solution to the problem. He immediately offers up his two virgin daughters to be gang-raped instead. The sexuality in this story has escalated to incredible hostility. It's therefore not about gay vs. straight. The person being praised throughout this story, namely Lot, has proposed an even worse solution to the problem. It says a lot about the value of women too, given how Lot regards his daughters. Therefore the actual moral is about the violation of the rule of hospitality. After all, the offer of his daughters is a form of heterosexual dysfunctionality. The Sodom story was not interpreted as one about homosexuality until the last millennium.

Leviticus 18 is the second instance in the Old Testament where the issue comes up. Here, homosexuality is one of many ritual prohibitions, and it appears here for several reasons. One, there is no way to create new life from the relationship. Two, it would require one of the men to play the submissive female role. Three, the Hebrews wished to keep separate what nature kept separate. Now, lest anyone think this verse can be harmlessly plucked out of context, remember that the penalty for violating it is prescribed in 20:13. Now, as many of you know, this prohibition requires some serious verse-hunting today, as Leviticus 18 also contains prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality. The rest of Leviticus contains ritual prohibitions that are meaningless today, so why single out gays?

Romans 1 brings us to the letters of Paul, where he condemns both gays and lesbians. If you notice the exact wording of the passage, Paul is assuming nobody is homosexual and that people choose to be, presumably after having tried out various lifestyles.

1 Corinthians 6 also makes mention of homosexuality, but it's buried among a list of other sins like adultery, stealing, and slander, so one would have to make a very selective case here.

Overall, we have a very weak scriptural case against homosexuality based on quote-mining, selective citation, and out-of-context interpretation. Without a Biblical basis for their arguments, homophobes don't have a leg to stand on. How then can they justify their stance? Is it tradition within their community? Political pressure? The need to conform? Perhaps instead of looking outward for others to denounce, they should take a long look in the mirror and reevaluate what they find.

 

[Navigator]

Homophobia is an issue that frequently comes up in religious debate. On several occasions I have posed the question as to why people believe as they do, that certain individuals must be condemned for their sexual orientation. Yet I've gotten no response other than ad hoc justification. I've sought to explore the question, familiar to some of you I'm sure, does this bigotry originate in scripture? If so, which verses? What do they mean in their original context?

Hi Frozenwolf

Are you homosexual?

I am not.

Nor am I frightened of homosexuals. I don't gel with the type which are camp - not that I am unsocial toward them but that I don't understand why they need to talk like they do - it seems to be an exaggeration of sorts - perhaps from a defiant perspective. Each to their own.

I have friendly acquaintance with homosexuals who are less obviously 'gay'.

When I was a teenager an older man who was gay tried to get me interested. I was not rude toward him and said that I preferred women (not that I had had much experience in that department) but that was fine and it did not hurt our relationship because he accepted this and made no further advances.

I was a Christian at the time, and understood that homosexuals were not considered favorably but then I have always been one to make up my own mind on anything and tended to see the god of the bible in a more tolerant light than most fundamentalists see him.

I did not consider the bible to be the 'word of god' but a book of books of stories and parables and gravitated to the wiser sayings....things that I felt would help me be a better person...not that I was a bad arse or anything, but I had issues and faults and preconceptions etc, and while there were a few characters in the old testament to which I gravitated toward or identified with in some way, the main character I was drawn to was Jesus.

Although I did not realize it then, my thinking on the god of the bible was that he was open to reason and was also learning...evolving. I have not changed my position on that, even be that I am able to regard him as fictional - the character is malleable.

The verses most frequently cited are Genesis 19 and the destruction of Sodom, Leviticus 18 and the sexual prohibitions, Romans 1 in the letters of Paul, and one could argue 1 Corinthians. These are the most toxic, with the worst political implications.

We start with the story of Sodom. God wanted to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah unless a single virtuous man could be found within. He sent his angels ahead, and they were taken in by Lot. This story illustrates the ancient rule of hospitality. If a stranger came to your house, you had to take them in. Travel was a treacherous ordeal, as there were no roadsigns or markers, and no hotels or restaurants along the way. Hospitality was a matter of life and death, and showing it to a road-weary traveler was a sign you were a civilized person. As a traveler, your life depended on the kindness of strangers.

What does this have to do with sexual morality? In 19:5, the townspeople come knocking on Lot's door asking him to send the two men out so they can sexually abuse them. But now wait. Consider Lot's solution to the problem. He immediately offers up his two virgin daughters to be gang-raped instead. The sexuality in this story has escalated to incredible hostility. It's therefore not about gay vs. straight. The person being praised throughout this story, namely Lot, has proposed an even worse solution to the problem.

It says a lot about the value of women too, given how Lot regards his daughters. Therefore the actual moral is about the violation of the rule of hospitality. After all, the offer of his daughters is a form of heterosexual dysfunctionality.

If we were having a face to face discussion, this is likely the place where I would interrupt you.

I recall the story. Firstly I would question why you would think it was 'an even worse solution to the problem' Surely sending out the two strangers to satisfy the demands of the towns-people was not any better a solution?

Lot had two problems. He was obviously heterosexual and obviously not 'world-wise' so may not have understood that the men making the demands would have no interest in his daughter.

That he considered the two strangers to be more value than his own daughter would have to do with their being 'Angels' (if he understood them as so) and for him to even think of suggesting the Angels (or strangers who he had given refuge to) should volunteer themselves to the demands of the homosexuals is probably coming from a lack of understanding as to protocol of the times and culture Lot was part of.

Lot was 'between a rock and a hard place' but I am assuming that he was not 'world wise' and could just as likely be incorrect - he may well have known that there was no danger to the men taking up his offer of his daughter, therefore there was no danger to her.

The Sodom story was not interpreted as one about homosexuality until the last millennium.

How do you know this?

Leviticus 18 is the second instance in the Old Testament where the issue comes up. Here, homosexuality is one of many ritual prohibitions, and it appears here for several reasons. One, there is no way to create new life from the relationship. Two, it would require one of the men to play the submissive female role. Three, the Hebrews wished to keep separate what nature kept separate. Now, lest anyone think this verse can be harmlessly plucked out of context, remember that the penalty for violating it is prescribed in 20:13. Now, as many of you know, this prohibition requires some serious verse-hunting today, as Leviticus 18 also contains prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality. The rest of Leviticus contains ritual prohibitions that are meaningless today, so why single out gays?

Incest was quite common and accepted by uncivilized culture. Adultery is not a big deal with same civilization. Bestiality is considered unacceptable by civilization although Zoophilia is not altogether dealt with effectively by some laws of civilized nations.

Incest and adultery are probably more 'natural' in terms of overall acceptance than are bestiality and homosexuality. However, one could argue that all are 'natural' since it is the nature of humans to do such things, but civilized humans?

Thus there has been as still is confusion and fear about what is acceptable and what is not.

Civilization has decided that sex with children, and animals is not acceptable. Sex with children is more common and thus laws are enacted to deal with that.
Adultery is more acceptable, although it is recognized as emotionally harmful and disloyal in relation to how civilized society at present operates but understandable with extenuating circumstances.

Homosexuality is slowly being understood as a preference thing between consenting adults and underlined by love. Its predominant negative is that it is considered an unnatural act and it is hard for many to see an act of love rather than an act of lust, or that love and lust are aspects of the same thing.

Some folk have the opinion that what others do privately is their business as long as they don't make a public display of their affection for each other. It is all pretty much bigotry, although seeing two men kissing I find weird, seeing two women kissing I find pleasant, I don't consider myself a bigot on those grounds. My position is each to their own as long as it is not affecting me adversely.

Romans 1 brings us to the letters of Paul, where he condemns both gays and lesbians. If you notice the exact wording of the passage, Paul is assuming nobody is homosexual and that people choose to be, presumably after having tried out various lifestyles.

1 Corinthians 6 also makes mention of homosexuality, but it's buried among a list of other sins like adultery, stealing, and slander, so one would have to make a very selective case here.

I personally don't have much time for Paul. I prefer Jesus.
I don't think Paul understood Jesus, any more than he understood homosexuality. I don't think he understood intimacy or even had a girlfriend. I could be incorrect on that, but you know how it is with impressions of personalities.
Paul was a bigot. Even his apparent conversion didn't altogether wash that away from his psyche.

Overall, we have a very weak scriptural case against homosexuality based on quote-mining, selective citation, and out-of-context interpretation. Without a Biblical basis for their arguments, homophobes don't have a leg to stand on. How then can they justify their stance? Is it tradition within their community? Political pressure? The need to conform? Perhaps instead of looking outward for others to denounce, they should take a long look in the mirror and reevaluate what they find.

This is good advice for everyone, no matter what position we adhere to.
I think the biggest problem is that the bible is considered 'the word of God' and it is left to the church hierarchy to interpret and people are generally very afraid to question it due to the belief in the nature of the god of the bible and the promise of worse to come should one question too deeply.

 

[Robrob]

Much if not most religious traditions are variations on "just so stories."

"Daddy, why do elephants have long noses?"

"Because a crocodile grabbed it and stretched it out."

"Daddy, why are there rainbows?"

"They are a sign God will never again drown the Earth."

"Daddy, why do I feel uncomfortable with homosexuality?"

"Because God says its evil."

 

[Navigator]

"Daddy, why do I feel uncomfortable with homosexuality?"

"Because God says its evil."

Really? My first encounter with homosexuality as a child was another slightly older child wanting to introduce me to it.

He was pretty persistent and wouldn't take no for an answer. I eventually had to run away, and remember calling him a 'homo' as I ran. His mother heard me and yelled abuse at me and told me not to return.

I wasn't planning to anyhow, so no big deal.

I think homosexuality isn't all the victim of heterosexual misunderstanding and could do with looking at itself and the way it also presents itself.

It is not the platform used so much as the attitude using the platform.

It is more about attitude, less about sexual (or any other) preference.

 

[Kopji]

What I find interesting are the sermons still almost never heard.
In Galations there is an idea that being holy transcends things like sex, who or what you call master, and what religious label you wear.

Instead we get... uh... well anyway, Jesus would have been a good shot.

Galations 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Navigator]

Russell Brand Interviews Westboro Baptist Church

 

[Craig B]

There's also the reference in the Epistle of Jude.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The account in Genesis 19, of course, has nothing to say about "eternal" fire, merely that

24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

 

[Navigator]

Does anyone know...

Is Jesus attributed with condemning homosexuality?

 

[yodaluver28]

Is Jesus attributed with condemning homosexuality?

He never mentions it one way or another.

 

[Brainache]

Is Jesus attributed with condemning homosexuality?

I think it might fall in the category of "Fornication". Any sex that isn't intended to lead to kids is apparently a big no-no.

 

[Brian-M]

We start with the story of Sodom. God wanted to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah unless a single virtuous man could be found within.

No. Not for the sake of a single virtuous man. According to Genesis 18:32 it's for the sake of ten righteous men that he would not destroy it.

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”​

He sent his angels ahead, and they were taken in by Lot. This story illustrates the ancient rule of hospitality. If a stranger came to your house, you had to take them in.

No. They didn't want to spend the night in his house. They only agreed to stay with him because he insisted.

From Genesis 19:2-3...

“My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house.​

Therefore the actual moral is about the violation of the rule of hospitality.

No. There's nothing in the story that supports this interpretation. It could (probably should) be interpreted as meaning that their evil was sexual assault in general.

However, since it involves a crowd of men wanting commit homosexual rape upon two men from out of town, and who show no interest in having sex with the women that are offered to them, it's often interpreted as being that their evil was, at least in part, that of homosexuality.

The rest of Leviticus contains ritual prohibitions that are meaningless today, so why single out gays?

Bigotry.

 

[Craig B]

... However, since it involves a crowd of men wanting commit homosexual rape upon two men from out of town, and who show no interest in having sex with the women that are offered to them, it's often interpreted as being that their evil was, at least in part, that of homosexuality.

Much the same story is told in Judges 19:12-30. In this case the rapists do indeed settle for the woman offered to them, a Levite's concubine. The tale proceeds:

25 So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go ... 27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. 29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.

As one would, of course.

 

[Brainache]

Much the same story is told in Judges 19:12-30. In this case the rapists do indeed settle for the woman offered to them, a Levite's concubine. The tale proceeds: As one would, of course.

Aren't Levites supposed to be the good guys?

 

[Craig B]

Aren't Levites supposed to be the good guys?

They were. Wait till you meet the bad guys!

 

[Brainache]

They were. Wait till you meet the bad guys!

Oh no! I sense some fundy moral relativism on the horizon...

 

[Pup]

Much if not most religious traditions are variations on "just so stories."

"Daddy, why do elephants have long noses?"

"Because a crocodile grabbed it and stretched it out."

"Daddy, why are there rainbows?"

"They are a sign God will never again drown the Earth."

"Daddy, why do I feel uncomfortable with homosexuality?"

"Because God says its evil."

I think that pretty well sums it up. And as different Bible-believing cultures feel uncomfortable with different things, they cherry-pick or re-interpret different parts of the Bible to support what they want.

Really? My first encounter with homosexuality as a child was another slightly older child wanting to introduce me to it.

He was pretty persistent and wouldn't take no for an answer. I eventually had to run away, and remember calling him a 'homo' as I ran. His mother heard me and yelled abuse at me and told me not to return.

It was your first encounter with "homosexuality" (not "a homosexual"), yet you already knew the term "homo" and could accurately apply it as an insult? Really?

I think homosexuality isn't all the victim of heterosexual misunderstanding and could do with looking at itself and the way it also presents itself.

It is not the platform used so much as the attitude using the platform.

It is more about attitude, less about sexual (or any other) preference.

Some people hit on others who aren't receptive to their advances and won't take no for an answer. No kidding. Women have been complaining about that from straight men years, so it's just as valid to say that heterosexuality "could do with looking at itself and the way it also presents itself."

If all gay people should take responsibility or feel guilt because some act like that boy, then heterosexual males should do the same for every man who makes women uncomfortable with sexual advances.

Personally, I think women should be treated as equals, not sex objects, but there's little I can do to prevent it from happening if some heterosexual decides to be a jerk when I'm nowhere around.

 

[catsmate]

What about Luke 7 and the story of Longinus?

 

[Navigator]

He never mentions it one way or another.

No - I don't recall it myself.

 

[Navigator]

I think it might fall in the category of "Fornication". Any sex that isn't intended to lead to kids is apparently a big no-no.

Okay, is Jesus attributed with bringing up the subject of sexuality at all?

 

[Navigator]

No. Not for the sake of a single virtuous man. According to Genesis 18:32 it's for the sake of ten righteous men that he would not destroy it.

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”​

No. They didn't want to spend the night in his house. They only agreed to stay with him because he insisted.

From Genesis 19:2-3...

“My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house.​

No. There's nothing in the story that supports this interpretation. It could (probably should) be interpreted as meaning that their evil was sexual assault in general.

However, since it involves a crowd of men wanting commit homosexual rape upon two men from out of town, and who show no interest in having sex with the women that are offered to them, it's often interpreted as being that their evil was, at least in part, that of homosexuality.

Bigotry.

Did these cities even actually exist? It seems more likely that bigots themselves made the story up and elaborated thereafter.

Perhaps sleazy homosexuals also contributed to bigotry against homosexuals from harassed heterosexuals, in a similar way that misandry bigots respond to being harassed sleazy men.