This post is an unbelievably long one, so for those of you who do not like a lot of reading, feel free to save yourself the eye strain and skip over it. Also, to those of you who do not follow the Christian Religion, I recommend that you overlook this topic so that you will not be offended through exclusion. My target audience is those who use the Bible as leverage for the claim that homosexuality is immoral and sinful.

First off, it may be helpful for you to know that I am indeed gay (still completely closeted to all who know me personally, though I can tell you that will change shortly). A few months ago, while school was still in, I had the opportunity to do a research paper on the Bible and Homosexuality in response to the great gay marriage debate. Not wanting to be biased, I decided to take a neutral stance on the issue, claiming that the Bible is too openly interpretive to truly derive whether or not homosexuality is deemed sinful and immoral. Although I stayed true to my thesis the entire way, handing it in as originally planned, I believe that in reality, homosexuality has not been condemned by the Bible, but is the result of any number of errors in interpretation. Why? Because there are so many different ways the people rewriting the Bible could have goofed up (or, dare I say it, did so purposely) that it doesn’t seem likely that the Bible could have been perfectly interpreted from its original context. Thus, I shall attempt to prove this to you.

To start off, let me present you with this crucial bit of information: the concept of homosexuality did not exist in biblical times. It was not until 1869, far beyond the times of the Bible, that the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ came into existence, used to support a theory that some people were born with a predisposition toward members of the same sex (whether or not the theory is true is yet to be determined). In Biblical times, it was believed instead that all who participated in such acts had consciously decided to go against their natural programming, much unlike true homosexuals, who do not have the freedom to make that choice. In addition it was not uncommon that such a practice was somehow directly related to a cult, ultimately leading to the conclusion that this was a sin of idolarity, not of a sexually related nature. Thus, if the concept of a loving relationship between two members of the same sex did not exist during the times of the Bible, how can it be addressed in the Bible?

Many anit-gay religious leaders claim that even from the beginning homosexuality was wrong. In the story of seven-days creation, it says that “God created man and woman in his likeness.” Because both man and woman were created, these people assume that they were created only for each other. Nowhere in that passage does it say that all men were created to love women, nor all women were created to love men. In addition, God tells his children to “be fruitful and multiply,” meaning that he wanted them to have many children. Some anti-gay leaders have made claims on this passage that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and that because homosexuals are unable to do so, they should not be permitted to marry. True, God wanted the couples to have children, but the Bible didn’t say that he wanted all couples to have children. There is no law nor any condemnation, either in today’s world or Biblical times, of a union between a man and a woman who are unable to produce children, whether it be from the woman being beyond her childbearing years, or one or both of the spouses being sterile for some reason. If there are no biblical laws against a childless heterosexual marriage, then why can’t homosexuals have the same type of marriage?

The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used as leverage to claim that homosexuality is a sin. As anti-gay leaders have claimed, the city is destroyed due to homosexual activity. However, upon closer examination, such may not be the case. As the story goes, Lot, a resident of Sodom, offered to take in two traveling angels, who were secretly in town to determine whether or not the two cities should be destroyed. During the night, a gang of several men came to Lot’s house, saying “Who are these strangers? Let us in, so we may know them.” The word 'know', originally derived from the Hebrew word yadah, has several different meanings in the Bible. Some times it means “to have thorough knowledge of,” other times it means “to check the credentials of,” and in some cases it does indeed mean “to have sex with.” In this context, the last meaning does indeed seems to fit the best. However, these men obviously did not want to create any sort of loving relationship with the angels, as it is with true homosexuals. The men’s purpose was to bring harm and shame to them. Through what means, you may ask? What better way to bring shame to someone than through rape? Thus, it was not the sex act itself that would anger God, but the fact that the intentions behind it were hateful and a violent, having no intention to show love or affection. Lot, who was obligated to protect his guests under the code of hospitality, refused the men permission to see the angels. He instead offered the men both of his daughters, which suggests that the men were clearly heterosexuals. Regardless, the men broke into Lot’s house and made their way towards the room the angels were staying in. Before they could do anything, the two angels blinded all of the men, leaving them unable to find the door. The two angels then told Lot to gather his family and run, as the two cities would soon be destroyed by God’s wrath.

Leviticus is home to the two “ultimate” passages that are believed to condemn homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22, “A man shall not lie with another man as he does a woman, ”and Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with another man as he does a woman, the two men have sinned and must be put to death; they have brought it upon themselves.” However, upon close consideration, there are any number of explanations to discredit these two passages. First and foremost, we must consider how some of the laws from this book have been followed, whereas some of them have been ignored. According to Leviticus, nobody was permitted to wear clothing made from two or more fabrics. A woman could not have sex with a man during her period. Men were prohibited from shaving their beards. Tattoos were not permissible. Although these laws are clearly written out, each and everyone of these listed laws has been long since forgotten by the church. Clothing is so often made from multiple fabrics that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find something not made of two or more different materials. Women, on occasion, do have sex with men during their menstrual cycle. Shaving has become commonplace in the world of men, and rarely does the religious figure say to the congregation member, “You must repent from the evil sin of shaving, or you shall surely burn in hell!”, especially when the religious figures do it themselves. Tattoos are everywhere, and more importantly, a gothic cross has become a highly popular marking to have on one’s arm. When considering all of this, in combination of the passage in which Jesus’s says “...not one jot of the law shall change,” why would the church choose to hold only the supposed "anti-homosexuality" law as one of sin, and yet ignore all the rest? However, all of this is assuming that the above passages are in their correct translation, which they may very well not be. In the original Hebrew text, the word to’ebah, meaning ‘abomination,’ appears in both passages. The word ‘abominaton,’ translating as something that was disgusting or unclean to God, was generally associated with worshiping false idols and the practice of cult prostitution. As mentioned earlier, since the passage is referring to a practice of a cult (more specifically, the cult of Molech), it should be considered a sin of false idols, rather than of sexual uncleanliness.

Within Romans 1:26 (“Because of this, God gave them up to their sexual lusts for one another. Women gave up their love for men and began performing shameful acts with other women. In the same way, men stopped having natural sex and began lusting for one another. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.”), returns the issue of the lack of the homosexuality concept. As it appears in the text, Paul believes that the men and women have “given up” their love for each other and have begun to have sex with one another, against how they were naturally made. However, true homosexual love does not involve “giving up” passion for the opposite sex, as that passion was never there to begin with. The passion for other members of the same-sex is always present in true homosexuality. In addition, should the passage have been interpreted and translated correctly, it must be taken into account in I Corinthians 6:3, (an echo of one of Jesus’s earlier passages in which he says “Why not judge for yourselves what is right?) when Paul says “Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, pertaining to this life!” The ‘angels’ that he is referring to are not the spirits of actual angels, but the things that can deem a person holy and good. Ultimately, this passage means that a person should use their own judgement to decide what it is that seems right to them. Paul himself is not trying to be the ultimate authority on right and wrong in his books, but is trying to judge for himself what it is that he believes is right, including his views on homosexuality. I believe the best way to put what I’m trying to say into perspective was taught to me by my former youth pastor when he said “Love God, and do as you please.”

In I Corinthians 6:9-10, (“Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”) and I Timothy, two crucial Greek words have appeared in the passages that have had issues of mistranslation. The first word, malake, (‘effeminates’ in the passage, appears only in I Corinthians 6:9-10) was originally translated as someone who was morally weak or had a lack of self-discipline. It wasn’t until 1946 that the term was given a sexual connotation and became “sexual perverts,” which immediately led people to assume that homosexuals fell under that category. The second word, arsenokeeteh, (abusers of themselves with mankind, appears in both passages) literally translating as “male-active-bed,” which has been translated in more current versions of the Bible as homosexuals. However, the word arsenokeeteh is a word that could refer to several different things, such as ‘child molestors’ and ‘people with infamous habits.’ Without a clear-cut definition, it cannot be determined whether or not this passage is condemning homosexual acts, especially since there were more accurate words to describe sexual acts between people of the same sex.

Finally (yes, you’re almost done), you must take into account ‘the golden rule’ of the Bible: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.” This is, as I believe it to be, the ultimate purpose of the Bible. We are to love God and one another, just as he loves us. How a person shows their love differs for each individual. Considering this, why should homosexuality be viewed any differently than as a unique way of loving others? By sheerly loving one another, how are they not following what Jesus himself set forth as the ultimate law of the Bible?

That’s enough about what I believe. I want to hear your thoughts. Accept or reject what I have written, it’s up to you. However, should you try to combat what I have written here, do it with logical arguments to convince me why it’s wrong. Such brief and unsupported arguments such as “It’s wrong because the Bible says so!” helps neither you nor me in any way, especially when considering that I have just torn the Bible to shreds. In addition, anyone who is offended by my being gay and gives off a post such as “You’re a sinner and you’re going straight to hell!”, you must remember that you are a sinner as well, and you have absolutely no right to judge me, just as I have no right to judge you.

Happy Debating!

[This message was edited by ShadowTracker on July 16, 2004 at 01:34 AM.]

I agree about the Bible saying,“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.”. It's stupid how we can take just one little line out of the Bible and be like,"OMG, homosexuality is a sin! We must not give any of them homos rights!" But it's like you may as well not give anyone rights because I thought America was also based on a principle just like this. But now it's like today we must hate someone at one point or another. It's like that is what being American is all about these days. And not the freedom it was once about. The Bible gives good rules to live by. And the church has decided to exempt all these rules except for the stupid anti-homosexuality is a sin rule thingy. I hate my country. lol

I agree. But it was those darn bulletin surveys that got me. And I love making my profile PRETTY. And commenting people. And people telling me how pretty I am in my pictures. And writing blogs.

I told you. I'm obsessed. It's a real problem I got.

But I can be obsessed with both, I think!

quote:

I promise never to make that mistake again.

darn right YN>Myspace by an order of magnitude incomprehensible by mankind

lol...you would be correct, Hydrok. How's it going?

Life got busy on me and I also became one of the millions obessed with MySpace at the same time. With those two together, YN is easily forgotten.

I promise never to make that mistake again.

Hmm, is that worth? Is it me or has she not been around?

This is perhaps my favorite post on YN ever.

I would like to add one thing to the Leviticus argument: Those rules were also written for nomads traveling in the desert with Moses. Therefore, those rules were needed to prevent diseases so that all of the Israelites did not die.

Otherwise, Shadow has covered every single thing I have ever said when stating that, "The Bible does not condemn homosexuality." And yet, I still constantly here, "The Bible says it's wrong." How unfortunate.

Weren't all of those argued against in the original post? Wow. Retroactive arguing.

Wow. I am so convinced.

and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, [even] Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

Genesis 19:1-13
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus 20:13
Now you know and read this verses in the King James version which has a simpler

I read an interesting interpretation about what Paul said in 1 Corinthians. Apparently, he wasn't trying to make some over-arching statement about what's good and what's bad. He was just pissed off at the church in Corinth because they were taking Greek practices (like temple prostitutes and orgies during religious ceremonies) and combining them with Christian beliefs and practices. Paul didn't like this at all and he told that to the Corinthians in no uncertain terms. But the main thing to realize here is that it was Paul writing. Just a man (and an angry one at that) writing a letter to a church partially under his control. No God involved there.

I would like to take this moment tho point out.... THE BIBLE IS OVER 2000 YEARS OLD!!! It also says that a married man must have a beard, and its ok to treat women as slaves! Over the past several thousand years, things have changed. Therefore, no offence, but I don't see how it matters what the bible says.

there are flaws in the biblical side of the argument tho and i think we need to recognize that and this very long thought process which you have so kindly put together proves that!

:-)

-aaa

Many places in the bible arn't clear, for instance it's full of contradictions. While there may be places that can be interpreted as being against Gay relationships there are also places that would be against womens rights and for slavery.
There is also the overall message in Jesus's teachings in the bible of equality, that would contradict the verse about wether or not being gay is a sin. Love thy neighbor was a ten comandment... not being gay wasn't.

YOGIE!!!!!!!!!!!

And if you respond to me Shadow please keep it under two sentences *headache*.

GQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never use the Bible in the same context as homosexuality. It always ends in tears. I don't care if you're defending homosexuality or attacking it you're going to piss someone off if you use the Bible. *shakes head* Will they never learn.

quote:

Actually not...NIV wasn't translated from KJV or other English versions of the Bible, it was translated directly from the oldest Greek and Hebrew texts in existence.

Even the oldest texts still in existance have been translated. And not to mention the bible wasn't written down until much after Jesus died.

Proof.