What does the bible say about being gay?

[apathy maybe]

The BBC has an article on the topic of the bible and being gay, in which they take various verses and look at them from a "pro gay" and "anti gay" position. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3205727.stm

For example:

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."
To which the "pro-gay" position could be:

A pro-gay argument might say that other verses in the same book forbid a wide range of sexual activities, including having sex with a woman who is having her period. This is an indication that the passage embodies specific cultural values rather than God's law.

What do people think of this?

[Demogorgon]

Given the existence of different sexual orientations was not known at the time, it is something of a moot point. People believed then that there was only sexual action rather than sexual orientation. It was only in the nineteenth century that modern definitions emerged.

Anyway as with all things in the Bible, it is really entirely down to how you want to interpret it. Also when it comes to Levitical laws you have to be very careful about whether you want to discuss them at all, because many of them are specifically written so as to be unenforceable. That is something many modern readers can't understand, that there would be laws, claimed to come directly from God, that were not meant to be enforced and in many cases even obeyed. The key to this is the provisions in the text for conviction are so stringent it is inconceivable that anyone could ever be found guilty. Furthermore even when it is possible to find people guilty of certain crimes (the laws intended to be obeyed are generally easier to prosecute), it is very hard to gain enough evidence to give out harsh punishment. This is why ancient jewish society almost never used the Death Penalty despite it being mandated for vast numbers of crimes in the laws. Indeed, many Jewish Scholars had concluded by the time of Jesus that Leviticus actually forbade the death penalty rather than allowed it. This all ties in with the theological notion that many Christian scholars hold now that the laws are intentionally impossible to follow in order to act as a lesson in human fallibility.

All of this means that biblical laws need to be taken with a large grain of salt. As for the rest of the Bible, well it is ambiguous here as it is anywhere else. There are parts that seem to condemn homosexuality but there are also plenty of mentions of same sex relationships described in a positive light, with one particular story involving jesus healing a Roman Centurion's catamite and essentially blessing the relationship.

And of course in the old testament you have David and Jonathan and in the book of Ruth it seems that Lesbian relations are being described. Indeed the promise Ruth makes to her companion is the basis for the Christian marriage vows.

So like I say, you really cannot pin the Bible down to any position. People of all different ideologies can use it to justify any position they like.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't know where I can nitpick your post, D. ;)

Here is a possible cultural context for the prohibition against male-male sex (which, if true, had nothing to do with modern-day homosexual "love" relationships at all):

http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html


This all ties in with the theological notion that many Christian scholars hold now that the laws are intentionally impossible to follow in order to act as a lesson in human fallibility.

I'm not sure, since Jewish folks would like to point out this Deuteronomy quote on the whole set of laws:

Rather, it is very close to you, in your mouth, in your heart, that you may do it.

[BTW, this quote was, in turn, twisted by the apostle Paul when trying to preach his stuff in his letter to the Romans (Chapter 10) - typical of Xian distortions of the true (Xian-speak: "Old") Biblical context. :rolleyes: ]

[Bud Struggle]

The Bible is a good example of how a winnowing down of how society should function. From the sort of beastly creature that man evolved from to a civilized person that we are all trying to be.

It's a basic list of "rules" to be civilized. Most good, a few off target. But all in all a good start. Don't kill, don't steal--good start. Some other's not so much. Don't eat crows, all that stuff about what kind of hoof an animal has...who cares? It was an interesting start.

Some rules-a bit over the top, like the ban against gays, but TAKE IF FOR WHAT IT WAS--a beginning of civilization. Not the near finished product we have today.

In a few thousand years they may take some of our rules and laws and think they are crap, too.

We evolve.

[Decolonize The Left]

The fact that anyone would take their moral laws from a book written so long ago by over a hundred men over the span of hundreds of years is the issue here.

Why even debate the contradictions in the bible? If one is even thinking of taking it seriously that's what ought to be debated - not the actual content...

- August