LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Ah. I had forgotten how...inclusive, the term "sodomy" was.

boop

Also isn't the Jewish Sabbath Saturday?

Ah, OK. Wall of text incoming!

One first thing to keep in mind is that actually the Bible does not talk at length about homosexuality. There are two verses in Leviticus, in the Old Testament, which talk about it, and there are a couple of passages in some epistles of Paul; but for the most part, the Bible has very little to say on the topic of homosexuality, or of rules about sexuality in general.

It saddens me that all too often, Christianity is interpreted as the religion of "Your Genitals And What You Cannot Do With Them..."

The second thing is that — no offense meant to the tropers who are biblical literalists — I do not believe in the least that biblical literalism is an appropriate mode of interpretation of the Bible. The internal contradictions, and the way in which the points of view of the human authors differed in various books, the factual inconsistencies, and so on make such an interpretation, I believe, completely untenable; and to be fair, Biblical literalism has not been considered an appropriate mode of interpretation of the Bible since Saint Augustine, at least.

That's not to say that I don't care about the Bible, or that I am willing to ignore whatever it says that I don't like. But it means that I believe that one should do some more work to examine how specific parts of it fit in the overall message of the Bible, to try to understand what messages it carries and in which way they are applicable to my life. Just like the Bible is not a science textbook, it is not a law code either.

OK, this premise made, let us consider the passages against homosexuality.

The ones in Leviticus are, I think, quite easy to dismiss. They are ritual laws which were meant to apply to the Old Covenant, not differently from the dietary laws and so on; and historically, they were certainly influenced by the fact that, at the time, anal sex was a somewhat risky proposition for health reasons and by the fact that cultures which were inimical to the Hebrews practiced sacred male prostitution. I really see no reason why these rules should be more binding for me than the rule saying that I should not eat meat that contains blood (I'll write more about this blood taboo later, it gets more interesting).

As an aside, the Leviticus passages specifically refer to men having sex with men, so you'd be absolutely blameless according to them, Kay

Some say that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is also a tale against homosexuality. This, I think, is complete nonsense. Sodom was not destroyed because the citizens were too limp-wristed, it was destroyed because they attempted to gang-rape angels.

Now let us get to the New Testament and to the Pauline letters. Paul, I think, was unmistakably against homosexuality. There are some who argue that the Greek terms that Paul uses actually refer only to pedophilia, or to same-sex prostitution, or to anal sex; but given the way in which these statements were interpreted since the early times of the Church (for example, the way in which, as soon as Christianity became the Empire's state religion, homosexuality was outlawed) I am reasonably confident that Paul was actually talking about homosexual acts.

Still, this does not resolve the question entirely. Yes, Paul believed that homosexual acts were sinful, and he wrote so in his epistles which are part of the Bible; but does it mean necessarily that I am bound to believe this too? Paul spoke not a word against slavery, and in the Letter to Philemon he actually returned a slave to his master (urging him to treat him fairly and asking him to return the slave to him, true, but still): does this mean that I have to think that slavery is less problematic that homosexuality?

Or should I rather try to understand how these passages should be interpreted in the light of the socio-cultural framework in which Paul lived, and how they should be harmonized with other passages of Paul's letters (like "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus", for example) and, more in general, with the overall message of the New Testament?

Now, the society in which Paul lived was the Roman Empire: and the form in which homosexuality was practiced in the Roman Empire was, to say the least, problematic. For a male to "submit" to another male was believed by the Romans to be degrading and emasculating; but no such stigma existed on the other hand for the "active" partners, especially not if they took very young, more "feminine" and "submissive" companions. For example, the Romans punished homosexuality in the military with death (a cruel one too — fustuarium, being cudgeled to death), because soldiers becoming feminine and weak is clearly a betrayal against Rome; but on the other hand, a rich landowner having their way with a slave boy was perceived as perfectly natural and unproblematic. The Greek perspective was a little different, but, again, not very wholesome at all.

So Paul, who was a strict observant of Hebraism and who, of course, followed scrupulously the OT rules against homosexuality, saw this sort of thing and went "yeah, forget about it". It's quite understandable, really.

But consensual same-sex relationships in the modern world are something quite different from what Paul spoke against. He had no familiarity whatsoever with them: even the very concept of sexual orientation was something that did not exist at all during his time. And if we try to judge modern consensual same-sex relationships in the light of the overall thrust of the New Testament, as far as I can tell there is no reason whatsoever to prohibit them.

Now, one might perhaps say that I am wrong in rejecting Paul's ruling in this way, and that the rules asserted in the New Testament should be followed blindly without quibbling in this way.

To this, first I would reply that I do not believe this to be the case — again, it's not that I don't believe that the Bible is important, but I don't believe that it is a law code. But furthermore, I would present one example of one New Testament ruling that is, without any doubt, far more binding than Paul's statements against homosexuality.

As narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, in the First Council of Jerusalem the question was posed whether the Christians should be bound by all regulations of the Old Testament. After some debate, James — the leader of the Church of Jerusalem — in agreement with Peter decided that

So the Christians are to avoid "things polluted by idols", fornication (other translations say "sexual immorality", which arguably fits better, I think), strangled animals and blood.

This is a council decree, so it is as binding as it gets.

Still, later, when it comes to "things polluted by idols", Paul himself argued (very convincingly, I believe) that it was not a problem for a Christian to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, if one does not do to honor the idols but — for example — because he is a guest of someone else and he is offered some meat. What matters is the attitude with which one approaches the issue. If you eat that meat in order to honor other gods, well, that's obviously unacceptable for a Christian, but meat itself is not the problem.

So Paul himself did not see a problem in arguing, on rational grounds, for a different interpretation of an official ruling. And Paul, in another passage, urges his readers to imitate him. Shall we do that and apply to his rulings the same criteria that he applied to James and Peter's ones?

Then we have the rules against strangled animals and blood. These had a clear purpose, since doing away with them would have greatly offended the sensibilities of the Hebrews. And the blood taboo, for example, was still in force in 731, when Pope Gregory III ruled that eating blood entailed a 40 days penance.

Still, nowadays most of us have no problems eating things containing blood, like sanguinacci; and the overall point of view seems to me that since these rules were made in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Hebrew converts, and the vast majority of Christians today are not such, there is no point in these rules anymore.

Which, again, is a reasonable point of view, but kind of clashes with the "whatever is written in the Bible must be followed literally and blindly forever!" perspective.

Finally, let me recall that in the Council of Jerusalem there was also a rule against fornication, or against "sexual immorality". What does it mean? If I were to make a guess, I would say that sexual immorality, ultimately, is to treat other people as things in the context of sexuality — to deal with them as tools for your pleasure, instead of treating them with the respect that any other human being deserves; and that furthermore, it is sexual immorality to allow oneself to become enslaved to sex, to let the search for pleasure become the driving force of one's life. This is unworthy of a human being, and a grave offense against one's own dignity.

But is homosexuality necessarily sexually immoral in one of these senses? I do not think that this is the case.

Whew, that took quite a bit longer than I thought. I hope it helps!

edited 1st Mar '13 10:57:54 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

He says that like it's a bad thing.

I understand fully where you are coming from. But I believe that, and all other forms of bigotry, stem from a complete lack of understanding of the Bible.

When you read the Bible, one of the most apparent themes is that God and God alone has the right to demand obedience from anyone. He alone is the only one justified in forcing someone to do anything. And even he REFUSES to do so.

The thing to remember is that while you may have given birth to someone, it is God who created them first. No matter how much I love Starship, Jr., only God know his every thought, including the ones not even he is aware of. So if God himself is willing to respect my son's right to be gay, who the fuck am I; mere mortal who can't even remember all his own sins, he's committed so many; to judge him?

When people remember that every single person is an individual fashioned by God and thus no one has the right to take the place of God over anyone else, I think bigotry becomes impossible.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, I believe I'm right. I think homosexual relationships and acts are wrong and that my son would be happiest in straight monogamous relationship. It is precisely because I love him and want him to see it the way I do that I WILL NOT force him.

I don't mean, when he's a child. As I've said before, I have the right, and the duty, to instruct him in the ways I know. As he gets older, I force him less and less. Until he reaches a point where I'm confident he makes his own choices, and then I leave him in the care of his Creator.

If my son wants to have a boyfriend, there's no amount of arguing or cajoling or begging that'll get him to change his mind. After all, he'll probably be a stubborn son-of-a-bitch like his old man. But the Bible tells me that expressing Christ's love and lack of judgment; his quiet word and ready hand of friendship; that has changed people's minds for thousands of years.

It comes down to this, will you or won't you obey what the Bible told you to do?

EDIT: Because it IS a bad thing. Or do you think all who dare disagree with gay behavior are like the KKK?

edited 1st Mar '13 9:40:10 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

That's the thing though Ship. I don't agree with the "don't question your parents beliefs" mindset. That doesn't mean there aren't people who agree Christian and Atheist alike. Even if you want to say there not following scripture accurately they won't listen. There going to want unceasing control and in most cases there going to have it.

That is precisely why I don't believe it is a solution to this problem now.

METAL GEAR!?

@Carc

Thanks for the response. I think that makes sense. So... do you think people who interpret homosexual acts as sins are wrong or do you think that's as valid of an interpretation as yours?

I wonder what Starship thinks regarding all of that though. XD

Gee, how nice of him. It's either "do what I say" or "fuck off". :P

edited 1st Mar '13 9:55:21 AM by kay4today

I think he's talking about people advocating against homosexuals. That's not people like you, Starship, who advocate for gay rights. The complete opposite, the people trying to take rights away, I believe.

edited 1st Mar '13 9:53:41 AM by Lascoden

boop

I think that they are wrong. This does not make them evil or dumb or whatever, of course; but I think that they are mistaken, yes.

I'm not at all inclined to postmodernism: if two people say contradictory things, at least one of them must be wrong

If I am not mistaken, he interprets the Bible according to a completely different approach. I have nothing against him; but yes, the two of us are not in agreement here.

edited 1st Mar '13 9:56:44 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Oh. Carry on.

Yeah, my esteem for Carc is considerable, but yeah, we don't see eye-to-eye on Biblical interpretation.

It was an honor

@Carc

Why can't someone like you become Pope? >:(

/rhetorical question

edited 1st Mar '13 10:01:46 AM by kay4today

Because I would declare as an infallible truth that what I declare to be infallible is false, and the ensuing paradox would destroy reality

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

We're praying that the next pope is less narrow-minded than his predecessors.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.

Or nothing would happen, proving the entire doctrine wrong.

Either way, bad for Catholics.

edited 1st Mar '13 10:04:24 AM by Elfive

Speaking of homosexuality and religion have either of those things been treated well in Star Trek? The Outcast backfired and Chakotay was a walking stereotype of Native Americans with his religious practices messed up and fake.

How about in other fiction?

edited 1st Mar '13 10:07:07 AM by Wildcard

METAL GEAR!?

Of course it was treated well. No one made a fuss when Kirk and Spock flirted and eventually became full-on romantic partners. All the implied off-screen sex was only a bonus.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the gods that appear in star trek are just powerful/advanced aliens.

On the other hand, if you're dealing with the Q, is there really much of a difference?

Dude, Star Trek treats religion like shit. I never understand why I'm such an avowed fan.

It was an honor

Cause your a Pinko Commie at heart.

METAL GEAR!?

God might exist in the Trekverse. It's just that a lot of aliens get mistaken for him all the time.

And that's exactly why the Holy Spirit will not choose me

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Ship I think your wrong about Trek and religion. Kirk's apparently a Christian,

"Mankind has no need for gods. We find the One quite adequate."

Could be a different one but it doesn't seem to be.

edited 1st Mar '13 10:25:48 AM by Wildcard

METAL GEAR!?

"I mean, the KKK accused black men of wanting to rape white women. All I'm doing is accusing homosexual men of wanting to molest little boys. Completely different."

I like Doctor Who's approach during the Russel T. Davies era. You had LGBT characters and no one made a fuss. I guess other people's "alternative lifestyle choices" don't matter much when the Daleks invade.

edited 1st Mar '13 11:06:25 AM by Morgikit

What. Fucking. Lifestyle?

Schild und Schwert der Partei

"Homosexual lifestyle" used to describe a type of lifestyle just as "homosexual relationship" is a descriptor of a type of relationship.

Geez Ach, no need to go all Son of Mogh.

Dammit! Cover blown!

I quite forgot about that. But I took it as Kirk simply giving the finger to those aliens who pose as God. Almost like "We dont' need your dogma, we have ours."

re: Religion in fiction - Wasn't Special Agent Dana Scully a practicing Catholic?

edited 1st Mar '13 11:25:38 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor