(no subject)
I read this in the library archives of www.rotten.com
Leviticus
If one needs further convincing upon this point, it may be worth considering some other Bible passages used to condemn homosexuality. The book of Leviticus is often trotted out as "proof" that God abhors fags. Take for example this passage: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18;22). Again, on the surface, this appears to be iron clad proof that homosexuality is wrong. But what does that mean "as with womankind"? Does it really mean you can't have sexual relations with a person of the same gender? Why, then, is there no injunction against women lying together? We might assume a lack of specificity is at fault, though this seems unwarranted since the next line specifically says, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion." Shall we assume that lesbianism is okay but that gays are damned? Seems rather ridiculous (although some lesbians might disagree).
A more contextual reading of Leviticus begins with acknowledging that this part of the Old Testament is essentially about ritual purity. It drones on ad nauseam as to who should sacrifice what kind of animal for what occasion and to redress which transgression and so on and so on. It then further details all the things that one might do that would make one impure in the eyes of the Lord. Lying with a man as with a woman is one of these. But think about it, what would you say about a man who just stuck his bare penis up another man's butthole -- wouldn't you say he was, at least temporally, unclean? Yeah, a little purification, or at least a good soapy shower, might be in order here.
But what about this abomination business? To answer this, let us digress to consider that, as a people, the Hebrews had spent a goodly amount of time in bondage to the Babylonians somewhere around the 6th century. Many scholars believe that a good deal of the Bible's negative spewage about "men who lay with other men as with women" was less a generalized hatred of homosexuality, and more a reaction to the religious practices of the Babylonians. Specifically, to the fact that in Babylon (and other parts of the Near East) the priests dressed in women's clothes and had anal sex with male worshippers. The Jews, followers of the male God Yahweh, were to purify themselves of all allegiance to foreign "idols" ("Thou shalt have no other god before me."). Hence all such goings on were forbidden to them. It was an abomination.
Certainly this does not "prove" that homosexuality was or is okay according to Christianity. But should at least make us think twice before trotting out the same old passages as evidence that sodomy equals anal sex and that anal sex equal homosexuality and that homosexuality is evil. Taken bit by bit, the pieces of this equation simply fall apart.
In the effort to defend or dispute this equation however, a great war of debate has raged between various biblical scholars who themselves are prejudiced to defend or condemn homosexuality. Essentially it has amounted to a great deal of arguing over subtle nuances of translation and the conclusion that one can or cannot draw from them regarding the Bible's real stance on homosexuality.
Well that solves ONE problem :) haha ok im done.