| Revision as of 11:54, 11 August 2005 edit66.216.226.34 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:42, 11 August 2005 edit undo-Ril- (talk | contribs)10,465 edits r.v. those titles are POV and entirely inappropriateNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <div class="notice metadata" id="cleanup" style="text-align: center; background: #efefff; margin: 1em 10%; border: #9F9FFF 1px solid;">This article needs to be ''']''' to conform to a ] of quality.<br /><small>See ] and ] for help, or this article's ]. </small> '''Articles should not be a series of pro vs. anti positions'''. </div>] | <div class="notice metadata" id="cleanup" style="text-align: center; background: #efefff; margin: 1em 10%; border: #9F9FFF 1px solid;">This article needs to be ''']''' to conform to a ] of quality.<br /><small>See ] and ] for help, or this article's ]. </small> '''Articles should not be a series of pro vs. anti positions'''. </div>] | ||
| The ] has been used by |
The ] has been used by supporters and opponents ] to justify their views. The following passages from the Bible are commonly used to illustrate their respective points of view. | ||
| ==Disputed passages== | ==Disputed passages== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ===Sodom and Gomorrah=== | ===Sodom and Gomorrah=== | ||
| ==== |
====Anti-homosexual view==== | ||
| God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion". In response to the liberal argument that Christ allegedly contradicted this interpretation in the statement ''"it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement"'', conservatives point out that this quote does not contradict the above interpretation, and in fact does not address the reasons for the cities' destruction at all. In response to the argument (cited below) that these cities must have been bisexual and therefore were destroyed for promiscuity, conservatives would point out that this argument hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings. (Bingen, 278-279) | God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion". In response to the liberal argument that Christ allegedly contradicted this interpretation in the statement ''"it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement"'', conservatives point out that this quote does not contradict the above interpretation, and in fact does not address the reasons for the cities' destruction at all. In response to the argument (cited below) that these cities must have been bisexual and therefore were destroyed for promiscuity, conservatives would point out that this argument hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings. (Bingen, 278-279) | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Cities destroyed for greed, rape and promiscuous sexual habits==== | |||
| God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (), including attempted ''rape'' () of asexual creatures (i.e. angels). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned not sexual immorality. , ancient Jewish oral traditions and Christ's words: ''"it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement"'' (; ; ) Furthermore if the cities truly were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, thus their sexual immorality was being promiscuous since the men would have had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner, thus this passage says nothing about monogamous homosexual relationships and is irrelevant when condemning them. (Crompton, Louis) | God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (), including attempted ''rape'' () of asexual creatures (i.e. angels). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned not sexual immorality. , ancient Jewish oral traditions and Christ's words: ''"it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement"'' (; ; ) Furthermore if the cities truly were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, thus their sexual immorality was being promiscuous since the men would have had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner, thus this passage says nothing about monogamous homosexual relationships and is irrelevant when condemning them. (Crompton, Louis) | ||
| ===Leviticus=== | ===Leviticus=== | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====God prescribes the death penalty for men who have sex with men==== | |||
| ] and state | ] and state | ||
| *''"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."'' | *''"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."'' | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| God condemns sexual intercourse between men, in conformance with the Biblical descriptions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by ] Himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9. This principle is also stated bluntly in other revealed sources which forbid sex between two men or between two women. In response to the liberal interpretation (below), conservatives would say that such speculation cannot be used to contradict the clarifications of the matter in the above mentioned sources; moreover, the idea that Leviticus is only condemning people who act contrary to the inclinations of their flesh (i.e., heterosexuals having homosexual sex) would contradict one of the Bible's main themes - the inherent sinfulness of most of our physical impulses and the need to overcome them. Nowhere does the Bible ever claim that such impulses reflect God's will, but rather quite the opposite. {{Unsourcedsect}} | God condemns sexual intercourse between men, in conformance with the Biblical descriptions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by ] Himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9. This principle is also stated bluntly in other revealed sources which forbid sex between two men or between two women. In response to the liberal interpretation (below), conservatives would say that such speculation cannot be used to contradict the clarifications of the matter in the above mentioned sources; moreover, the idea that Leviticus is only condemning people who act contrary to the inclinations of their flesh (i.e., heterosexuals having homosexual sex) would contradict one of the Bible's main themes - the inherent sinfulness of most of our physical impulses and the need to overcome them. Nowhere does the Bible ever claim that such impulses reflect God's will, but rather quite the opposite. {{Unsourcedsect}} | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Revoked cleanliness law ordering the death penalty for those who have sex against their nature==== | |||
| The literal translation is | The literal translation is | ||
| *''"with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman; it is an abomination."'' | *''"with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman; it is an abomination."'' | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| In ] , it states | In ] , it states | ||
| * ''For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.'' | * ''For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.'' | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Sex outside a heterosexual marriage is wrong==== | |||
| Adultery - sexual intercourse outside of marriage - is condemned since homosexuals are not wed their actions are sinful. In response to the liberal rebuttal (below), conservatives say that human decisions to bless same-sex marriages cannot change the Divine law: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; – and – {{Unsourcedsect}} | Adultery - sexual intercourse outside of marriage - is condemned since homosexuals are not wed their actions are sinful. In response to the liberal rebuttal (below), conservatives say that human decisions to bless same-sex marriages cannot change the Divine law: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; – and – {{Unsourcedsect}} | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Sex outside a monogamous relationship is wrong==== | |||
| If this argument is ever used against ], it becomes a ] and many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The passage does not condemn the ancient practice of ], which is ordained purely for same-sex relationships. {{Unsourcedsect}} | If this argument is ever used against ], it becomes a ] and many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The passage does not condemn the ancient practice of ], which is ordained purely for same-sex relationships. {{Unsourcedsect}} | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| In the ] , it states | In the ] , it states | ||
| * ''For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.'' | * ''For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.'' | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====All homosexuality is unnatural==== | |||
| Homosexual intercourse is unnatural, and is a ''degrading passion''. For Paul the natural thing was heterosexual intercourse, so all other forms are unnatural {{Unsourcedsect}}. | Homosexual intercourse is unnatural, and is a ''degrading passion''. For Paul the natural thing was heterosexual intercourse, so all other forms are unnatural {{Unsourcedsect}}. | ||
| ====Homosexuality is natural for some humans==== | |||
| This passage condemns acting against one's nature. Claiming that homosexual intercourse is unnatural is a false premise under current majority scientific thinking. It is not in a homosexual person's nature to have heterosexual intercourse because they have no attraction to the opposite sex. Heterosexuals acting out of their nature and being promiscuous by having homosexual intercourse for pleasure even though they have no homosexual attractions are what this passage condemns not homosexuals. | |||
| ===Corinthians=== | ===Corinthians=== | ||
| ] says | ] says | ||
| ** ''Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.'' | ** ''Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.'' | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Sodomites and adulterers can be used to refer to all homosexuals==== | |||
| Homosexuals are condemned to Hell for being adulterers and sodomites. Paul used a most unusual word, {{polytonic|ἀρσενοκοίτης}} ''arsenokoitēs'', meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek {{polytonic|ἄῤῥην/ἄρσην}} ''arrhēn''/''arsēn'' = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Rather, Paul's source is the Greek (]) translation of Leviticus 18:22: {{polytonic|καὶ μετὰ '''ἄρσενος''' οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ '''κοίτην''' γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν}} (''kai meta '''arsenos''' ou koimēthēsē '''koitēn''' gunaikos; bdelugma gar estin'') = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. In response to the rebuttal (below), conservatives point out that a human construct such as the modern blessing of same-sex marriages cannot override the Divine Law, and these "marriages" are therefore null and any associated sex is sodomy and therefore sinful: the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. | Homosexuals are condemned to Hell for being adulterers and sodomites. Paul used a most unusual word, {{polytonic|ἀρσενοκοίτης}} ''arsenokoitēs'', meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek {{polytonic|ἄῤῥην/ἄρσην}} ''arrhēn''/''arsēn'' = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Rather, Paul's source is the Greek (]) translation of Leviticus 18:22: {{polytonic|καὶ μετὰ '''ἄρσενος''' οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ '''κοίτην''' γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν}} (''kai meta '''arsenos''' ou koimēthēsē '''koitēn''' gunaikos; bdelugma gar estin'') = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. In response to the rebuttal (below), conservatives point out that a human construct such as the modern blessing of same-sex marriages cannot override the Divine Law, and these "marriages" are therefore null and any associated sex is sodomy and therefore sinful: the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Homosexuals are not Sodomites and not all of them are adulterers==== | |||
| Many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The residents of Sodom had homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse which would make their "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men had more than one partner, thus this passage is irrelevant when condemning monogamous homosexual relationships. The reference to Leviticus is likewise irrelevant since a homosexual has no attraction to women and therefore would not lie with one in the first place. {{Unsourcedsect}} | Many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The residents of Sodom had homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse which would make their "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men had more than one partner, thus this passage is irrelevant when condemning monogamous homosexual relationships. The reference to Leviticus is likewise irrelevant since a homosexual has no attraction to women and therefore would not lie with one in the first place. {{Unsourcedsect}} | ||
| Line 54: | Line 53: | ||
| The Story of ''']''', from ] that can be found , has several homosexual themes alleged in it. | The Story of ''']''', from ] that can be found , has several homosexual themes alleged in it. | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Jonathan and David were a couple==== | |||
| This passage contains many euphemisms. It states that their love was stronger than that between any women they had contact with. Intimate sexual love is generally considered stronger than the platonic variant therefore Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship. It is true that David also had multiple wives, but with the acceptance of polygamy this would not automatically exclude any relationship with Jonathan. King Saul, Jonathan’s father even made David the next King which is usually reserved for hereditary lines suggesting a close relationship between David and Jonathan. King Saul also states that David will become his son-in-law again when he offered one of his daughters hand in marriage – this was before David had any wives – this would suggest that Saul recognized Jonathan and David’s relationship on a martial level. Other passages within the tale have David stripping completely naked in front of Jonathan – highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing - and then holding each other extremely closely and kissing. (Religious Tolerance) (Crompton, Louis) | This passage contains many euphemisms. It states that their love was stronger than that between any women they had contact with. Intimate sexual love is generally considered stronger than the platonic variant therefore Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship. It is true that David also had multiple wives, but with the acceptance of polygamy this would not automatically exclude any relationship with Jonathan. King Saul, Jonathan’s father even made David the next King which is usually reserved for hereditary lines suggesting a close relationship between David and Jonathan. King Saul also states that David will become his son-in-law again when he offered one of his daughters hand in marriage – this was before David had any wives – this would suggest that Saul recognized Jonathan and David’s relationship on a martial level. Other passages within the tale have David stripping completely naked in front of Jonathan – highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing - and then holding each other extremely closely and kissing. (Religious Tolerance) (Crompton, Louis) | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Jonathan and David were friends==== | |||
| The love was not sexual: unlike the account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, there is no explicit mention of sex, and the word used for "love" was a general term for any type of love. ] | The love was not sexual: unlike the account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, there is no explicit mention of sex, and the word used for "love" was a general term for any type of love. ] | ||
| ===The "Pais" of the centurian=== | ===The "Pais" of the centurian=== | ||
| This refers to ] — the Story of the Centurion | This refers to ] — the Story of the Centurion | ||
| ==== |
====Pro-homosexual view==== | ||
| The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is ''Pais''. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a man’s gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term ''Slave or Servant'' (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear. This would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion, allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship. | The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is ''Pais''. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a man’s gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term ''Slave or Servant'' (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear. This would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion, allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship. | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Jesus did not help a same-sex couple==== | |||
| The homosexuality reference is purely innuendo, and it is quite possible that the servant was not a homosexual love-slave at all; moreover, this is an ]. | The homosexuality reference is purely innuendo, and it is quite possible that the servant was not a homosexual love-slave at all; moreover, this is an ]. | ||
| ===Equal love in Peter=== | ===Equal love in Peter=== | ||
| In ''']''' it states | In ''']''' it states | ||
| * ''Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.'' | * ''Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.'' | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Love is the highest calling==== | |||
| If a modern homosexual relationship actually contains legitimate love, it cannot be condemned. | If a modern homosexual relationship actually contains legitimate love, it cannot be condemned. | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Platonic love is the highest calling, lust can be sinful==== | |||
| The Greek word here is not ''eros'', but ''agape''. Agape refers to a nonsexual/brotherly ], not a sexual sort of love. Hence, the passage does not apply to the homosexuality debate. | The Greek word here is not ''eros'', but ''agape''. Agape refers to a nonsexual/brotherly ], not a sexual sort of love. Hence, the passage does not apply to the homosexuality debate. | ||
| ===Condemnation of the term "raca"=== | ===Condemnation of the term "raca"=== | ||
| ''']''' | ''']''' | ||
| * ''...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin.'' | * ''...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin.'' | ||
| ====Pro-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====Jesus condemned abusive language towards effeminate homosexuals==== | |||
| Here Jesus criticizes the usage of the inflammatory term "raca" to describe effeminate homosexuals. The term according to an ancient Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC was on par with the Roman word "kinaidos" for "queer". According to Professor Halsall the word "raca" (which is common in many Semitic languages and loosely means soft), was used at the time with an effeminate connotation. The ] word "raq" is used to indicate a woman's name or occupation. The symbol in that language derives from a ]n symbol for "woman". It can be argued securely that ''Raca'' is an accusation of "sissy" or "catamite". This drew a sharp contrast to the Romans and Greeks, such as ], who openly criticized effeminate homosexuals holding only masculine homosexuals as the acceptable form. Since Jesus openly criticized the Roman insult for one specific type of homosexuality He surely would have opposed subjecting people to physical violence. Furthermore Jesus never attacked homosexuality in any of his sermons or speeches. | Here Jesus criticizes the usage of the inflammatory term "raca" to describe effeminate homosexuals. The term according to an ancient Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC was on par with the Roman word "kinaidos" for "queer". According to Professor Halsall the word "raca" (which is common in many Semitic languages and loosely means soft), was used at the time with an effeminate connotation. The ] word "raq" is used to indicate a woman's name or occupation. The symbol in that language derives from a ]n symbol for "woman". It can be argued securely that ''Raca'' is an accusation of "sissy" or "catamite". This drew a sharp contrast to the Romans and Greeks, such as ], who openly criticized effeminate homosexuals holding only masculine homosexuals as the acceptable form. Since Jesus openly criticized the Roman insult for one specific type of homosexuality He surely would have opposed subjecting people to physical violence. Furthermore Jesus never attacked homosexuality in any of his sermons or speeches. | ||
| ====Anti-homosexual view==== | |||
| ====The term may not refer to homosexuals, and would not imply endorsement regardless==== | |||
| The meaning of the term ''"raca"'' is unknown; and while Christ's compassion for all persons is not disputed, it would not logically follow that Christ was defending homosexual intercourse here even if ''"raca"'' was an insult used for effeminate men - forbidding someone to use an insulting term does not imply endorsement of whatever the term refers to, just as forbidding the use of the vulgar term ''"whore"'' would not imply endorsement of prostitution. Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned many other sins nor specifically re-iterated many of the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that Christ wished for these Commandments to be overturned. There was presumably no need for Christ to re-iterate the entire Divine Law. {{Unsourcedsect}} | The meaning of the term ''"raca"'' is unknown; and while Christ's compassion for all persons is not disputed, it would not logically follow that Christ was defending homosexual intercourse here even if ''"raca"'' was an insult used for effeminate men - forbidding someone to use an insulting term does not imply endorsement of whatever the term refers to, just as forbidding the use of the vulgar term ''"whore"'' would not imply endorsement of prostitution. Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned many other sins nor specifically re-iterated many of the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that Christ wished for these Commandments to be overturned. There was presumably no need for Christ to re-iterate the entire Divine Law. {{Unsourcedsect}} | ||
Revision as of 16:42, 11 August 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and Christianity This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality.See How to Edit and Style and How-to for help, or this article's talk page. Articles should not be a series of pro vs. anti positions.
The Bible has been used by supporters and opponents homosexuality to justify their views. The following passages from the Bible are commonly used to illustrate their respective points of view.
Disputed passages
*"Why do you morn and grieve, beloved? I have been taken from you bodily, but in the bond of our love, I am with you still."
This is one translation, and an alternative has terms like "friend" in place of "beloved". Boswell also asserts this icon depicts adelphopoiesis with Jesus as "best man" . Other scholars regard it as a typical dual portrait of two saints who were martyred together, asserting that there is no indication that it depicts a wedding, and that the image of Christ which appears above the two is something found in religious artwork throughout Christian history, such as in the icon of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, or the icon showing the Virgin Mary, angels, and members of the Church and numerous other paintings: These scholars argue that Christ's presence above the scene does not mean that Christ was serving as "best man" at a wedding unless one is arguing that the large crowds of people depicted in the above icons were also being married as a group.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Anti-homosexual view
God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. Jude 7 explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion". In response to the liberal argument that Christ allegedly contradicted this interpretation in the statement "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement", conservatives point out that this quote does not contradict the above interpretation, and in fact does not address the reasons for the cities' destruction at all. In response to the argument (cited below) that these cities must have been bisexual and therefore were destroyed for promiscuity, conservatives would point out that this argument hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings. (Bingen, 278-279)
Pro-homosexual view
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (Gen 18:20), including attempted rape (Gen 19:5) of asexual creatures (i.e. angels). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned not sexual immorality. Ezekiel 16:49-50, ancient Jewish oral traditions and Christ's words: "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement" (Matthew 10:15; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12) Furthermore if the cities truly were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, thus their sexual immorality was being promiscuous since the men would have had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner, thus this passage says nothing about monogamous homosexual relationships and is irrelevant when condemning them. (Crompton, Louis)
Leviticus
Anti-homosexual view
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 state
- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
- If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
God condemns sexual intercourse between men, in conformance with the Biblical descriptions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9. This principle is also stated bluntly in other revealed sources which forbid sex between two men or between two women. In response to the liberal interpretation (below), conservatives would say that such speculation cannot be used to contradict the clarifications of the matter in the above mentioned sources; moreover, the idea that Leviticus is only condemning people who act contrary to the inclinations of their flesh (i.e., heterosexuals having homosexual sex) would contradict one of the Bible's main themes - the inherent sinfulness of most of our physical impulses and the need to overcome them. Nowhere does the Bible ever claim that such impulses reflect God's will, but rather quite the opposite.
 | This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Pro-homosexual view
The literal translation is
- "with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman; it is an abomination."
- If a man with a male lays layings of a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
The phrase lay layings of is actually quite ambiguous, and although conservatives, and translators, render it lay as with, this is because they don't accept the alternative, and equally justifiable, rendering lay in the bed of, which is clearly a (now revoked) cleanliness law. The passage does not mention either procreation or marriage. Even with the conservative translation, it states that a man is not to lie with another man in the same way as he would with a woman, and as homosexuals are not likely to choose to sleep with a woman sexually, this cannot be a condemning of homosexual acts, only ever those of bisexuals. The prohibition, in the conservative translation, is based on gender behavior, for example one of the men emulating a female gender role (Gagnon, page 136). If anything this passage condemns heterosexuals having homosexual intercourse out of their nature because it would be promiscuous as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Matthew
In Matthew 15:19–20, it states
- For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.
Anti-homosexual view
Adultery - sexual intercourse outside of marriage - is condemned since homosexuals are not wed their actions are sinful. In response to the liberal rebuttal (below), conservatives say that human decisions to bless same-sex marriages cannot change the Divine law: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9
| This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Pro-homosexual view
If this argument is ever used against same-sex marriage, it becomes a catch-22 and many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The passage does not condemn the ancient practice of adelphopoiesis, which is ordained purely for same-sex relationships.
| This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Romans
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27, it states
- For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Anti-homosexual view
Homosexual intercourse is unnatural, and is a degrading passion. For Paul the natural thing was heterosexual intercourse, so all other forms are unnatural
| This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.
Corinthians
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says
- Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
Anti-homosexual view
Homosexuals are condemned to Hell for being adulterers and sodomites. Paul used a most unusual word, Template:Polytonic arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek Template:Polytonic arrhēn/arsēn = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Rather, Paul's source is the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: Template:Polytonic (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos; bdelugma gar estin) = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. In response to the rebuttal (below), conservatives point out that a human construct such as the modern blessing of same-sex marriages cannot override the Divine Law, and these "marriages" are therefore null and any associated sex is sodomy and therefore sinful: the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Pro-homosexual view
Many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The residents of Sodom had homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse which would make their "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men had more than one partner, thus this passage is irrelevant when condemning monogamous homosexual relationships. The reference to Leviticus is likewise irrelevant since a homosexual has no attraction to women and therefore would not lie with one in the first place.
| This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Jonathan and David
The Biblical account of David and Jonathan, in which David declares,
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26; KJV)
It has been read by some as the story of two lovers. For example, the anonymous Life of King Edward II, ca. 1326 AD, has:
"Indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus."
We are also told by the Monk of Malmesbury that King Edward II wept for his dead lover Piers Gaveston as:
"...David had mourned for Jonathan."<br
| This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
"La Somme le Roy", 1290 AD; French illuminated ms (detail); British Museum
The Story of Jonathan and David, from 1 Samuel that can be found here, has several homosexual themes alleged in it.
Pro-homosexual view
This passage contains many euphemisms. It states that their love was stronger than that between any women they had contact with. Intimate sexual love is generally considered stronger than the platonic variant therefore Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship. It is true that David also had multiple wives, but with the acceptance of polygamy this would not automatically exclude any relationship with Jonathan. King Saul, Jonathan’s father even made David the next King which is usually reserved for hereditary lines suggesting a close relationship between David and Jonathan. King Saul also states that David will become his son-in-law again when he offered one of his daughters hand in marriage – this was before David had any wives – this would suggest that Saul recognized Jonathan and David’s relationship on a martial level. Other passages within the tale have David stripping completely naked in front of Jonathan – highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing - and then holding each other extremely closely and kissing. (Religious Tolerance) (Crompton, Louis)
Anti-homosexual view
The love was not sexual: unlike the account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, there is no explicit mention of sex, and the word used for "love" was a general term for any type of love. 1 Samuel
The "Pais" of the centurian
This refers to Matthew 8:5–13 — the Story of the Centurion
Pro-homosexual view
The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is Pais. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a man’s gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term Slave or Servant (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear. This would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion, allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship.
Anti-homosexual view
The homosexuality reference is purely innuendo, and it is quite possible that the servant was not a homosexual love-slave at all; moreover, this is an argument from silence.
Equal love in Peter
- Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
Pro-homosexual view
If a modern homosexual relationship actually contains legitimate love, it cannot be condemned.
Anti-homosexual view
The Greek word here is not eros, but agape. Agape refers to a nonsexual/brotherly platonic love, not a sexual sort of love. Hence, the passage does not apply to the homosexuality debate.
Condemnation of the term "raca"
- ...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin.
Pro-homosexual view
Here Jesus criticizes the usage of the inflammatory term "raca" to describe effeminate homosexuals. The term according to an ancient Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC was on par with the Roman word "kinaidos" for "queer". According to Professor Halsall the word "raca" (which is common in many Semitic languages and loosely means soft), was used at the time with an effeminate connotation. The Akkadian word "raq" is used to indicate a woman's name or occupation. The symbol in that language derives from a Sumerian symbol for "woman". It can be argued securely that Raca is an accusation of "sissy" or "catamite". This drew a sharp contrast to the Romans and Greeks, such as Aristophanes, who openly criticized effeminate homosexuals holding only masculine homosexuals as the acceptable form. Since Jesus openly criticized the Roman insult for one specific type of homosexuality He surely would have opposed subjecting people to physical violence. Furthermore Jesus never attacked homosexuality in any of his sermons or speeches.
Anti-homosexual view
The meaning of the term "raca" is unknown; and while Christ's compassion for all persons is not disputed, it would not logically follow that Christ was defending homosexual intercourse here even if "raca" was an insult used for effeminate men - forbidding someone to use an insulting term does not imply endorsement of whatever the term refers to, just as forbidding the use of the vulgar term "whore" would not imply endorsement of prostitution. Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned many other sins nor specifically re-iterated many of the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that Christ wished for these Commandments to be overturned. There was presumably no need for Christ to re-iterate the entire Divine Law.
| This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
References
- Halsall, Paul, Homosexuality and Catholicism: A Partially Annotated Bibliography
- Hildegard of Bingen, "Scivias," Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New York: Paulist Press, 1990
External links
- Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics by Loren L. Johns the Academic Dean of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary.
- Homosexuality and the Bible by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink.
- How religious conservatives and liberals interpret the Bible.
- Pro-Gay texts in the Bible.