Religion is not capable of homophobia.

[chimx]

I was originally posting this to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/christianity-really-homophobici-t76786/index.html), but it became so long that I thought it warranted its own thread, instead of being buried on page 17 of that one.

Christianity is not inherently homophobic.

Capitalism is homophobic.

The Christian church has existed for two thousand years, far longer than capitalism has existed. But the current Christian church has become absorbed by the capitalist superstructure. It therefore adapts and changes to perpetuate the class hegemony of the current dominant class. It does this by advocating values and morals that aid in maintaining this class hegemony.

This means that as societies production relationships progress, so will the values and morals of the institutions' superstructure within the emerging social epoch.

I think it is important to give an example of this moral dynamism of these institutions, and the bible as a historical document does an excellent job. Let's look at a passage:


"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Roman's was written by Paul the apostle while he was evangelizing in Corinth Greece. It was written to Roman Christians directly living under Roman rule and Roman culture. Remember, Rome was a slave economy so it is important to look at the values of Roman culture.

Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) was common in Rome, but more importantly, homosexuality was a symbol of slave economics. Roman men did not have same-sex relationships with other Roman men. It was considered immoral. Just as women were property, and marriage was a financial transaction of sorts, Roman men that wanted to engage in homosexual acts did so with slaves or non-Romans. In short, class played a big role in the pairing of gay men in Rome.

As a side note, I will also add that the Roman values of sexual promiscuity, such as with pederasty mentioned above, also did not jive with the Judea-Christian morals of monogamy. But again, I think you can understand these differing social values in terms of class relations.

Authors criticized homosexuality and promiscuity as a value because it was a value of Rome.

Now that we have the historical context and materialist basis for the "homophobic" passages of the New Testament. Now I want you to show you another passage of the New Testament:


5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

This passage may seem entirely irrelevant, but I think it is important to note that this passage was originally written in Greek. In Greek there are many words that can be used for "servant", but the one used here was pais, which is a servant with whom you are having sexual relations with.

Here we have a clear example of Jesus blessing the lover of a Roman centurion who has faith in a religious institution (i.e.: superstructure) of a developing social class that was in conflict with the hegemonic class of the time (i.e.: slave-owning Rome).

This last part is particularly important. Remember the political history of ancient Jerusalem. Israel was a client-state of Rome, and anti-Roman attitudes were common. Shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, the first Jewish-Roman War started, in many ways as a class conflict between Rome and its client state.

And this is why I think it is interesting: we see an opposition to homosexuality in the New Testament when it is a symbol of Roman values and consequently Roman class hegemony, but we also see in the New Testament an acceptance of homosexuality when the couple is associated more with Israeli superstructure than Roman.

Religious values have changed dramatically over the past millennia. These values are not intrinsic to the religious institution, but are subject to change based on the class relations of the time. Christianity is not capable of being homophobic because it has no real inherent value outside of our social superstructure.

[Richard Nixon]

Interesting however capitalism is not anymore naturally homophobic as religion. Is there any doctrine of capitalism that says "A man who lies with a man as he does with a woman shall be put to death."? Indeed the argument can be made communism is homophobic (which I don't believe but I'm being the devil's advocate here) since every state that has called itself communist represses in homosexual population. No communist state has legalized gay marriage or civil unions but capitalist states have.

[Pogue]

But Christianity is a religion which I seem as like a worldview, similar to an ideolgoy but with one important difference - its based upon the writings of the holy book and that alone. Now the Christian hoyl book, the source of all of christianities teachings, the sole authority, is homophobic. Thus christianity is homophobic.

[Raúl Duke]

I was originally posting this to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/christianity-really-homophobici-t76786/index.html), but it became so long that I thought it warranted its own thread, instead of being buried on page 17 of that one.

Christianity is not inherently homophobic.

Capitalism is homophobic.

The Christian church has existed for two thousand years, far longer than capitalism has existed. But the current Christian church has become absorbed by the capitalist superstructure. It therefore adapts and changes to perpetuate the class hegemony of the current dominant class. It does this by advocating values and morals that aid in maintaining this class hegemony.

This means that as societies production relationships progress, so will the values and morals of the institutions' superstructure within the emerging social epoch.

I think it is important to give an example of this moral dynamism of these institutions, and the bible as a historical document does an excellent job. Let's look at a passage:



Roman's was written by Paul the apostle while he was evangelizing in Corinth Greece. It was written to Roman Christians directly living under Roman rule and Roman culture. Remember, Rome was a slave economy so it is important to look at the values of Roman culture.

Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) was common in Rome, but more importantly, homosexuality was a symbol of slave economics. Roman men did not have same-sex relationships with other Roman men. It was considered immoral. Just as women were property, and marriage was a financial transaction of sorts, Roman men that wanted to engage in homosexual acts did so with slaves or non-Romans. In short, class played a big role in the pairing of gay men in Rome.

As a side note, I will also add that the Roman values of sexual promiscuity, such as with pederasty mentioned above, also did not jive with the Judea-Christian morals of monogamy. But again, I think you can understand these differing social values in terms of class relations.

Authors criticized homosexuality and promiscuity as a value because it was a value of Rome.

Now that we have the historical context and materialist basis for the "homophobic" passages of the New Testament. Now I want you to show you another passage of the New Testament:



This passage may seem entirely irrelevant, but I think it is important to note that this passage was originally written in Greek. In Greek there are many words that can be used for "servant", but the one used here was pais, which is a servant with whom you are having sexual relations with.

Here we have a clear example of Jesus blessing the lover of a Roman centurion who has faith in a religious institution (i.e.: superstructure) of a developing social class that was in conflict with the hegemonic class of the time (i.e.: slave-owning Rome).

This last part is particularly important. Remember the political history of ancient Jerusalem. Israel was a client-state of Rome, and anti-Roman attitudes were common. Shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, the first Jewish-Roman War started, in many ways as a class conflict between Rome and its client state.

And this is why I think it is interesting: we see an opposition to homosexuality in the New Testament when it is a symbol of Roman values and consequently Roman class hegemony, but we also see in the New Testament an acceptance of homosexuality when the couple is associated more with Israeli superstructure than Roman.

Religious values have changed dramatically over the past millennia. These values are not intrinsic to the religious institution, but are subject to change based on the class relations of the time. Christianity is not capable of being homophobic because it has no real inherent value outside of our social superstructure.

Doesn't homophobia predates capitalism?

Homophobia (i.e. Homosexuality seen as a negative thing) existed during the Medieval Ages (http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho5.htm) in Europe.

Actually, if anything, it was during capitalism that we see attempts to fight/confront/diminish homophobia.

[chimx]

Doesn't homophobia predates capitalism?

Homophobia (i.e. Homosexuality seen as a negative thing) existed during the Medieval Ages (http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho5.htm) in Europe.

Actually, if anything, it was during capitalism that we see attempts to fight/confrontdiminish homophobia.

Under Europe's slave economy it was very much accepted and normal. With the rise of feudalism and the decline of the slave economy things changed I believe. However there was some variance... During the Renaissance it became much more common and acceptable in Italy -- which to some extent was probably a throw-back to Roman ideals.

But the existence of homophobia before capitalism is not the point. Xenophobia predates capitalism, but it is still a value of capitalism because it serves to preserve the capitalist order.

[chimx]

But Christianity is a religion which I seem as like a worldview, similar to an ideolgoy but with one important difference - its based upon the writings of the holy book and that alone. Now the Christian hoyl book, the source of all of christianities teachings, the sole authority, is homophobic. Thus christianity is homophobic.

I strongly thing you are looking Christianity solely through the looking glass of capitalism, and ignoring that Christian values evolve. The bible contradicts itself constantly. I've already shown you an example of the acceptance of homosexuality and the discouraging of homosexuality in the New Testament. The religious institutions, as part of the social superstructure, will identify with the values that perpetuate the production relationships of that particular epoch.

Take for example Christian views on money. During feudalism banking was looked down upon. You kept financial things to yourself. With the growth of Calvinism, work became glorified and the accumulation of wealth was suddenly acceptable. Values changed with the shifting historical epoch, and Christianity was more than willing to accommodate such a shift.

[Raúl Duke]

During the Renaissance it became much more common and acceptable in Italy -- which to some extent was probably a throw-back to Roman ideals.


It may have become more common (or more as people threw the accusation around more often) but it wasn't like it became exactly "more acceptable." It was still used as a form of smear/discrediting during those times (they used it against Da Vinci I think).

Also, homophobia existed in Ancient Israel (http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho1.htm) which did have a slave economy as well.
Actually that makes things a little odd, all the other surrounding slave economies didn't have this feature (because, as the article suggests, the reason why may be perhaps "political"). But the slave economy itself doesn't mean that homophobia isn't possible in that kind of society or that such an economy would deter its formation.

[chimx]

The "ancient Israel" of which you are speaking was a pre-slave economy that was nomadic and tribal. Living in the same region as the nomadic Jews that wrote parts of the old testament were tribes that followed fertility cults. If you look at the entirety of Leviticus 18, it will become apparent that what this Jewish sect was trying to do was distinguish itself from another sexually promiscuous competitive tribe:


6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

[narcomprom]

Indeed the argument can be made communism is homophobic (which I don't believe but I'm being the devil's advocate here) since every state that has called itself communist represses in homosexual population. No communist state has legalized gay marriage or civil unions but capitalist states have.
Stalin reintroduced the prosecution, to put it in his words, "to show the bourgeoisie the proletarians also have morals." In the early RSFSR no marriage was recognized and they were the first western state to halt prosecution for what was termed "sodomy", after the citizens of sodom and gomorrah slaughtered by the god of the bible.
Sure, communist states created by Stalin adopted Stalin's law. But what about Albania, China and Yugoslavia? Are you sure they weren't any different in that respect?

[Raúl Duke]

If you look at the entirety of Leviticus 18, it will become apparent that what this Jewish sect was trying to do was distinguish itself from another sexually promiscuous competitive tribeYes, I'm aware to it...it's mentioned to the link and I alluded to it.

But Ancient Israel did develop a slave economy (as far as I'm aware it's possible they did and if we are using the Old Testament as historical reference they do mention slave) and what I'm stating that even so by having this slave economy they were still able to create and develop homophobic laws/institutions irrespective (or so it seems, since their other slave-economy neighbors were more "promiscuous") of the economical system. If the economic superstructure has a total say on homophobia (if it exists or not, etc) then the development of homophobia in a slave economic should have been practically impossible (at least from what I gather that is what you are arguing for, correct?), but this is not the case.

[chimx]

But Ancient Israel did develop a slave economy (as far as I'm aware it's possible they did and if we are using the Old Testament as historical reference they do mention slave) and what I'm stating that even so by having this slave economy they were still able to create and develop homophobic laws/institutions irrespective (or so it seems, since their other slave-economy neighbors were more "promiscuous") of the economical system. If the economic superstructure has a total say on homophobia then the development of homophobia in a slave economic should have been practically impossible (at least from what I gather of what you mention/stated above), but this is not the case.

Slavery existed, but we don't look at that time period as being defined as being a slave economy (just like the pre-Civil War America's aren't considered a "slave economy" by Marxists). Leviticus was written by an Israelite tribe known as the Levites. During this time tribes did their own thing, or loosely aligned themselves with other Israelite tribes. They were nomadic and had no central government.

A classical slave economy almost developed with David, which is discussed extensively in the bible. For a brief period tribes united under a monarchy -- first Saul, but David later more importantly. But the nature of the economy didn't really fully develop. The monarchy briefly expanded by attacking neighboring tribes/kingdoms and created client-states, but the monarchy fell shortly after David and the Israelites went back to their more conventional tribal ways.

What is important to remember about social superstructure is that the values of these cultural institutions principally exist to preserve the existing social order. The same values can exist in multiple historical epochs provided that the values continue to serve the hegemony of the dominant class. And in the pre-slave economies of the Middle East, I would argue that having a diversity of cultural values between different tribes actually did just this -- preserve the hostile and decentralized nature of the economy by pitting tribal values against each other.

[Decolonize The Left]

Trashed off-topic flame baiting and response. Please be respectful.

- August

[Raúl Duke]

Slavery existed, but we don't look at that time period as being defined as being a slave economy (just like the pre-Civil War America's aren't considered a "slave economy" by Marxists). Leviticus was written by an Israelite tribe known as the Levites. During this time tribes did their own thing, or loosely aligned themselves with other Israelite tribes. They were nomadic and had no central government.

A classical slave economy almost developed with David, which is discussed extensively in the bible. For a brief period tribes united under a monarchy -- first Saul, but David later more importantly. But the nature of the economy didn't really fully develop. The monarchy briefly expanded by attacking neighboring tribes/kingdoms and created client-states, but the monarchy fell shortly after David and the Israelites went back to their more conventional tribal ways.

What is important to remember about social superstructure is that the values of these cultural institutions principally exist to preserve the existing social order. The same values can exist in multiple historical epochs provided that the values continue to serve the hegemony of the dominant class. And in the pre-slave economies of the Middle East, I would argue that having a diversity of cultural values between different tribes actually did just this -- preserve the hostile and decentralized nature of the economy by pitting tribal values against each other.

Ok then, I'll accept your thesis (in part)...
homophobia can "flourish" (can't think of another way to put it) in tribal and feudal systems.

But is it suppose to/can "flourish" under capitalism?

If anything, I'll concede that homophobia is something that became more/very prominent (Although traces can be found in some slave societies, like Rome. At least according to the article) under feudalism but what about capitalism and homophobia (their relation to one another)?

To me (I think), it was during this age (at least a latter part of this age, incidentally this latter part is also marked with increased secularism) where homophobia is getting slowly confronted and discredited (in comparison to some prior epochs, specifically feudalism)...

[Richard Nixon]

Stalin reintroduced the prosecution, to put it in his words, "to show the bourgeoisie the proletarians also have morals." In the early RSFSR no marriage was recognized and they were the first western state to halt prosecution for what was termed "sodomy", after the citizens of sodom and gomorrah slaughtered by the god of the bible.
Sure, communist states created by Stalin adopted Stalin's law. But what about Albania, China and Yugoslavia? Are you sure they weren't any different in that respect?

No. For instance none of these countries haven't legalized gay marriage, civil unions, or any rights conceded by capitalist societies.

[chimx]

same-sex relationships were criminal in China until recently I believe. But I think this is getting a little off topic.

[Demogorgon]

No. For instance none of these countries haven't legalized gay marriage, civil unions, or any rights conceded by capitalist societies.
No but capitalist societies only began to concede those in the late eighties (Denmark being the first) and mostly not until the late nineties. The first case of full same sex marriage was only in 2001.* Asking why the Soviet Union and the like didn't do so in the twenties or whatever is ridiculous. And while the claims of some people that Russia was the first European country to legalise homosexuality are untrue (France Italy, Turkey and the Benelux countries had all done so by then (over a century earlier in some cases) it was still a pretty drastic and impressive step for the Soviet Union to do so.

Back to the topic. I think Chimx's central point is that religious attitudes reflect the times. Religion does not exist in isolation to things going on around it and people do not form their thoughts independently of their material circumstances. Religion in of itself can neither be pro or anti homosexual. it can only reflect prevalent attitudes. At present with opinion being divided, it is only natural that religion is also divided on the matter.

I notice that some people here seem to get angry at the thought of religion being accepting of gay people as it doesn't fit with their own prejudices concerning religion. If that is causing them to indirectly oppose more people coming to accept homosexuality, it is time for them to reexamine their opinions.

*In many European countries however Civil Partnerships are legally identical to marriages with only the name being different.