To America on the Topic of Homosexuality: Grow Up!

[FormerFundie2004]

Homosexuality, ahh yes, the hottest debating topic of the decade (or longer?)...

Isn't it time that we just move on from this issue? Haven't we debated it, educated ourselves on it, argued, fought, bickered, and whined long enough?

Or perhaps we have already done that, but have now drawn a dividing line in the sand and have taken sides. Is that it? Perhaps that's it. Because we still haven't gotten over this whole homosexual thing yet.

Now, where am I going with this? I have been a convervative Baptist, card-carrying member of the religious right--until last year. And during that time I considered homosexuality to be a sin. I was a Bible literalist. Remember those verses that say that it's an abomination? Yeah, I took those as the very words of God Himself.

But now I do not believe they are. Don't turn off to me yet, that would be too easy.

America, in believing that homosexuality is a sin and to be rejected, do you realize what you have done? But now I am getting ahead of myself.

I used to think that everyone was born heterosexual, but some were prone to sexual sins. Some were just prone to homosexuality. These people might have fantasies for the same sex, but it's just a passing thing, just a simple sin that will pass. For some it might be very difficult to conquer, but ultimately if you try hard enough, and are spiritual enough, you can conquer it.

But when I began to examine the experiences of some homosexuals, I realized that their "proneness" to homosexuality was stronger than any proneness to sin I have ever experienced. If it was truly a "proneness" then it was different from all other pronenesses or urges than most people encounter.

Then I looked even deeper into it, and I discovered that it was much much more than a proneness.

I know that many of you don't believe this, but I believe that homosexuality is an orientation, not a preference. Just as I--being heterosexual--only desire men, a homosexual only desires members of his or her own sex. I am so thoroughly grounded in this belief now that there is no way anyone could convince me otherwise.

I am reading a book about Mel White (Stranger at the Gate). He discusses his life experiences and struggles with homosexuality. I am only in the 4th chapter and already it has been a very enlightening read. It is clear from his experiences alone that homosexuality is just as much an orientation as heterosexuality is.

Has anyone else read his book?

So many homosexual children, adolescents, and adults have been sacrificed to the homophobia in this country. A child who is scared of his or her emerging sexuality is made to feel condemned by what he or she cannot understand. How could you tell a child that what he or she is feeling for the same sex is a sin, when it is their natural course? How could such a child really be heterosexual, when at the age of 12, their first crush is on a member of the same sex? And all the ones after the first? And then, in later adulthood, they are never sexually stimulated by the opposite sex. How could that be anything other than natural?

If you must call homosexuality a sin or disgusting thing, please at least admit that it is a natural trait.

Back to my point. We really should grow up in this country. It's time to mature. It's time to stop hurting and abusing homosexuals, when they are no different from us. We have the knowledge out there that proves this. We are intelligent enough to reason this out. And we should have the good conscience enough to know that our homophobic attitude in this society is killing the abused. And the abused includes your children--those children and adolescents among us all who are gay, and are made to feel rejected, and even hated.

[dave_a]

While I agree entirely with the thrust of your post, I did note that your present belief is only a year old and before that you believed it to be a choice and a sinful one at that.

Therein lies the problem.

We can't (collectively) move beyond the gay=sin idea until more people do as you have done and moved beyond it.

I also used to believe it was a sin, a choice, and an abomination to God.

It isn't really an issue of maturity, I don't think. It is an issue of faith versus reality.

It is going to take generations to change these views significantly.

[ApostateAbe]

Unfair treatment of homosexuality is largely due to religion. Supposing you are somebody who takes the Bible literally, then you are left with no choice but to think that homosexuality is a sinful choice that people make. There are a dozen verses in the Bible, Old Testament and New, that equate homosexuality with the worst of sin. Go to any anti-gay Christian website to read them. Liberal Christians tend to rationalize those verses, but it is a type of reasoning that people of other stripes of religion cannot accept.

So it doesn't matter how much testimony homosexuals can give that it is natural. Fundamentalist Christians are faced with a choice: they can choose to believe either the testimony of homosexuals or the testimony of the Bible. Since the Bible has provided an order, purpose, and foundation for their lives, and homosexuals are wierd men on TV who have high-pitched voices, they choose to believe the Bible. In fact, everything including scientific discoveries, pictures of animals in homosexual acts, celebrity opinions, and even the pronouncements of their own sexual lusts must yield to the authority of the Bible.

There is probably no good solution to the problem. There are past problems that have arisen from a literal interpretation of the Bible, such as witch burnings, slavery, and sexism in the law. The problems are solved primarily with the slow evolution of society and not with changing individual minds.

[seebs]

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...

[Dingfod]

I think rejection of homosexuality goes beyond a religious basis in some people, they actually are repulsed by the very thought of same-sex sex, unless it is female-female. I'm not sure the level of response in some people comes from being culturally indoctrinated or if they actually fear they might too be homosexual or is just innate. Have there been any studies of that?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by FormerFundie200419

Now, where am I going with this? I have been a convervative Baptist, card-carrying member of the religious right--until last year. And during that time I considered homosexuality to be a sin. I was a Bible literalist. Remember those verses that say that it's an abomination? Yeah, I took those as the very words of God Himself.

I'm just curious. Did you also avoid seafood and pork? Those abominations are in the same book of the bible.

[Adora]

If you must call homosexuality a sin or disgusting thing, please at least admit that it is a natural trait.

Or, even better, don't call it that at all!

Unfair treatment of homosexuality is largely due to religion.

HAHA no.

What utterly shits me off about all of this is the way religious passages that in no way relate to homosexuality in moder Western society are somehow used to condemn it, and the way Fundamentalist Christianity is used as a smokescreen for gender issues of a far greater power than any religion or spiritual belief. This isn't about "Faith vs Reality" because condemnation has never, ever, truly been about homosexuality being a threat to marriage, god, or anything at all regarding spirituality. It is, however, a threat to perceived illusionary "natural" binary gender constructions, which gets dressed up by the masculine-dominated organisations behind and working in modern Fundamentalist Christianity (the Promise Keepers are just one example of these groups) in religion as an easier way to manipulate the masses that don't know any better.

This isn't about religion, this is about gender, about changing gender and taking supposed "natural" privileges away from those who have held on to them and abused them for too long. Realise that, and then you will truly grow-the-fuck-up.

[ApostateAbe]

There are many people who show a prejudice against homosexuals that has nothing to do with religion. They will use the idea of homosexuality as a perjorative. "Gay" is often meant as an insult to heterosexual males.

And I have a co-worker who is a rare variety of atheist--he has a deep intolerance of gays. He doesn't want his kid being exposed to homosexual ideas, he would prefer that they stay in the closet, and he regularly expresses it. It is a view he inherited from his father who said that he would shoot gays who trespass on his property and kiss.

Still, this doesn't approach what has been to the minds of fundamentalist Christians. Even my co-worker would concede that homosexuality is a natural thing and wouldn't want to remove the political rights of gays (he opposed gay marriage but gave civil unions the OK). Without a doubt, the Abrahamic religions are the basis of anti-gay hysteria in the world.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Without a doubt, the Abrahamic religions are the basis of anti-gay hysteria in the world.

No, they're not. You can't possibly have them as the basis for opposition against homosexuality when you take in a) the fact that nowhere specifically in the Bible (just using fundamentalist Christianity) is homosexuality condemned because b) "homosexuality" is a modern invention, created by the movement of a mostly agrarian culture into an industrial capitalist one. The Fundamentalist movement is an incredibly modern invention, which has only existed for around 30 years and is male-dominated, inherently invested in traditional gender roles because of this, and a branch of conservatism.

The hysteria comes from something far more complex, social-based and far more important to many people than a Big Invisible Friend. The religious excuses are just window dressing, and unless you realise this you're just playing into their hands.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by dave_a

We can't (collectively) move beyond the gay=sin idea until more people do as you have done and moved beyond it.

I'm sorry but I don't think literalism or gay=sin is something that more than a tiny little minority of people need to move beyond. You and FormerFundie2004 get from me for having done so, but y'all's beliefs were then and are still now very much out of the mainstream.

It is going to take generations to change these views significantly.

If you mean among fundamentalists, I couldn't really say, but I don't think this is true about most Americans. Check out these graphs plotting responses to polls on civil unions. The general trend is very much towards acceptance, and that's just in the last few years and on the very controversial matter of civil unions.

Hell, even among the church-going population there is very a significant percentage of people who deal just fine. The evangelical denominations have the lowest percentages, but more than a small minority of them don't seem to be anti-gay rights or anti-gay in general.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The problems are solved primarily with the slow evolution of society and not with changing individual minds.

I think the slow evolution of society consists of many individual minds changing.

FormerFundie2004, I assume from the way it is written that you intend to address this to conservative Christians. Good luck. Many people have been saying the exact same things to them for 30 years and more. But maybe coming from someone who used to be one of them will make it a little more convincing to some.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by Adora

No, they're not. You can't possibly have them as the basis for opposition against homosexuality when you take in a) the fact that nowhere specifically in the Bible (just using fundamentalist Christianity) is homosexuality condemned because b) "homosexuality" is a modern invention, created by the movement of a mostly agrarian culture into an industrial capitalist one. The Fundamentalist movement is an incredibly modern invention, which has only existed for around 30 years and is male-dominated, inherently invested in traditional gender roles because of this, and a branch of conservatism.

The hysteria comes from something far more complex, social-based and far more important to many people than a Big Invisible Friend. The religious excuses are just window dressing, and unless you realise this you're just playing into their hands.

You say that homosexuality is mentioned nowhere specifically in the Bible, but I must disagree. Like I said, liberal Christians have a tendancy to rationalize such verses, but it is not accepted by literalists. Maybe the equivelant word for "homosexual" does not exist in the Bible, but the Bible is specific in its meaning. Consider Leviticus 18:22,

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

and Romans 1:26-27,

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.

In that passage, homosexuality is condemned among the worst of sins in men AND women. Of course there are many more verses that put homosexuality in a bad light.

You say that fundamentalism is a modern invention. That is true. I'd say it has been around for around 100 years. But Bible literalism has been around much longer than that, and therefore, Bible-based homophobia has been around equivalently long. Homosexuality was always a taboo topic in the Christian world.

[livius drusus]

I think Adora's pointing out that same gender sex acts and homosexuality are not the same thing and therefore the Biblical condemnation of the former cannot be read as a condemnation of the latter, particularly since the very notion of homosexuality as an identity is a modern phenomenon.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I think Adora's pointing out that same gender sex acts and homosexuality are not the same thing and therefore the Biblical condemnation of the former cannot be read as a condemnation of the latter, particularly since the very notion of homosexuality as an identity is a modern phenomenon.

That would clarify it a little. The problem then would be the insistence that thoughts of sin are as evil as the act of sin, as expressed by Jesus:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Christians justify this by saying that the thoughts often lead to the actions, which makes logical sense.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by seebs

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...

No, but the bible can certainly provide a great deal of help towards that end. Now that I think about it, I don't see what else the bible is useful for (other than kindling).

[bobeh]

Originally Posted by Adora

No, they're not. You can't possibly have them as the basis for opposition against homosexuality when you take in a) the fact that nowhere specifically in the Bible (just using fundamentalist Christianity) is homosexuality condemned because b) "homosexuality" is a modern invention, created by the movement of a mostly agrarian culture into an industrial capitalist one. The Fundamentalist movement is an incredibly modern invention, which has only existed for around 30 years and is male-dominated, inherently invested in traditional gender roles because of this, and a branch of conservatism.

The hysteria comes from something far more complex, social-based and far more important to many people than a Big Invisible Friend. The religious excuses are just window dressing, and unless you realise this you're just playing into their hands.

Minor quibble...fundamentalism has been around a lot longer...in christian religious circles it was used as a term in the 1920's to describe a collection of doctrinal beliefs which were considered "fundamental" to true christianity. We wore the badge proudly in the 1950's as a statement against liberalism in christianity. It is only in the last few decades however that it has become a term that "outsiders" use to describe certain christian groups or individuals. Perhaps that usage is what you are referring to.

In my past belief system the only reason I would have thought homosexuality was wrong was because I believed that the Bible said it was wrong. When I realized that the Bible was not the "Word of God" any residual belief in the wrongness of homosexuality disappeared, evaporated. It had been a belief that I was uncomfortable with..and it felt good to be able to let it go.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by bobeh

Minor quibble...fundamentalism has been around a lot longer...in christian religious circles it was used as a term in the 1920's to describe a collection of doctrinal beliefs which were considered "fundamental" to true christianity. We wore the badge proudly in the 1950's as a statement against liberalism in christianity. It is only in the last few decades however that it has become a term that "outsiders" use to describe certain christian groups or individuals. Perhaps that usage is what you are referring to.

Perhaps. I think Fundamentalism could be traced back probably as far as around 1890, although the pamphlet that really defined things was something like 1917.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Consider Leviticus 18:22,

and Romans 1:26-27,

Which is talking about anal sodomy, in a misogynistic context. It does not say "Thou shalt not fall in love with men, be physically attracted to only men, want to 'settle down' with only men, participate politically wearing these facts on your sleeve etc etc" which is what "Homosexuality" represents. It is more than just sex-acts, it is an entire social change which has only been classified recently and in binary opposition to "Heterosexuality".

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.

Which works on the already assumed knowledge of Paul's readers that non-reproductive intercourse is bad, especially in contrast to the sexually indulgent cultures the early Christian population was surrounded with (and threatened by) at the time. It does not condem homosexuality, but (the whole section) threatens already-disliked punishments of the audience if they "go against God".

This is not condemnation of "Homosexuality", though fundamentalists like to paint it like it is. Like I said, if you keep agreeing with them, you'll never rise above them, and start thinking complexly. I can understand how stupid people interpret these passages as somehow condemning homosexuality. That doesn't mean I agree with them, or think they're not stupid for believe what they're told by their preacher/clergy.

It is only in the last few decades however that it has become a term that "outsiders" use to describe certain christian groups or individuals. Perhaps that usage is what you are referring to.

Sort of. I also mean the word 'Fundamentalist' as a majority of a US population, and a political power, which really only cemented with the 70s when conservative backlashes became popular (understandably).

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by Adora

Which is talking about anal sodomy, in a misogynistic context. It does not say "Thou shalt not fall in love with men, be physically attracted to only men, want to 'settle down' with only men, participate politically wearing these facts on your sleeve etc etc" which is what "Homosexuality" represents. It is more than just sex-acts, it is an entire social change which has only been classified recently and in binary opposition to "Heterosexuality".

Which works on the already assumed knowledge of Paul's readers that non-reproductive intercourse is bad, especially in contrast to the sexually indulgent cultures the early Christian population was surrounded with (and threatened by) at the time. It does not condem homosexuality, but (the whole section) threatens already-disliked punishments of the audience if they "go against God".

This is not condemnation of "Homosexuality", though fundamentalists like to paint it like it is. Like I said, if you keep agreeing with them, you'll never rise above them, and start thinking complexly. I can understand how stupid people interpret these passages as somehow condemning homosexuality. That doesn't mean I agree with them, or think they're not stupid for believe what they're told by their preacher/clergy.

It seems quite clear to me that the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are at least five passages in the Bible that seem to give homosexuality the cold shoulder (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, Judges 19, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6), and I have seen many of the liberal Christian's explanations of them. Each one of the passages is typically given a unique explanation. The mind games that liberal Christians play in order to tell us that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is similar to the games that fundamentalists play in order to resolve the contradictions. As usual, I take the simplest explanation, which in this case is that the Bible really does condemn homosexuality. That may seem simple-minded to you, but it is following the rule of Occam's Razor. Those who do not follow Occam's Razor will create a complex system of ad-hoc explanations just to hold one dubious idea to be true. That is what characterizes conspiracy theories and many bogus belief systems.

[livius drusus]

You're not addressing Adora's point here, Abe. Biblical writers had no notion of homosexuality: a sex act is not the same thing as a sexual orientation. The latter is a modern phenomenon and no more condemned in the Bible than Microsoft is.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

You're not addressing Adora's point here, Abe. Biblical writers had no notion of homosexuality: a sex act is not the same thing as a sexual orientation. The latter is a modern phenomenon and no more condemned in the Bible than Microsoft is.

OK, you and Adora seem to be making distinctions that are either not clear or are insignificant to me. It seems to me that intolerance of sex acts is inseparable from intolerance of sexual attraction and behavior, especially with the nature of the Bible's morality. It seems very unlikely to me that Jesus, Paul, Moses and the Christian God would have given gay pride parades, for example, the green light. But if it is true that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality yet it condemns homosexual acts, then why should that make an important difference?

[Adora]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The mind games that liberal Christians play in order to tell us that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is similar to the games that fundamentalists play in order to resolve the contradictions.

Except it's not "liberal Christianity" that explains these things, but non-Christian pro-Homosexual rights campaigners, feminists, and theologians who specialise in Christianity.

\That may seem simple-minded to you, but it is following the rule of Occam's Razor.

No, it's not. You're bastardising Occam's Razor as much as people claim the 'ie-God Exists' clause to everything is true to Occam's Razor.

Those who do not follow Occam's Razor will create a complex system of ad-hoc explanations just to hold one dubious idea to be true.

I'm not holding onto any "dubious ideal", and I simply don't see how understanding context is "ad hoc".

But if it is true that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality yet it condemns homosexual acts, then why should that make an important difference?

Because they weren't homosexual acts back then. They were acts of sodomy, rejected by the Judaic tribes because a) they were rather misogynistic when it came to sexual relations, and viewed "receiving" as a "dirty" act, and b) pansexuality was practiced by the tribes the Hewbrews were in competition with for resources, so they sought to distance themselves and create an illusion of difference (and more importantly- purity of bloodline). You can't have a "homosexual act" if there's no concept of "homosexual". You're projecting modern thinking and dogma onto a far different and ancient society. That is not Occam's Razor, that's just stupidity, and exactly what Christian Fundamentalists do when they bastardise any passage they feel like out of the old or new testament.

[ApostateAbe]

Adora, this discussion is getting much too convoluted for my tastes. I am going to go practice self-defense moves now.

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by Adora

Because they weren't homosexual acts back then. They were acts of sodomy, rejected by the Judaic tribes because a) they were rather misogynistic when it came to sexual relations, and viewed "receiving" as a "dirty" act, and b) pansexuality was practiced by the tribes the Hewbrews were in competition with for resources, so they sought to distance themselves and create an illusion of difference (and more importantly- purity of bloodline). You can't have a "homosexual act" if there's no concept of "homosexual". You're projecting modern thinking and dogma onto a far different and ancient society. That is not Occam's Razor, that's just stupidity, and exactly what Christian Fundamentalists do when they bastardise any passage they feel like out of the old or new testament.

Adora, the text says:

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.


Women exchanging "natural" intercourse for 'unnatural' is clearly discusing same sex relations. It describes same sex persons consumed with passion.

I don't understand how some can read this and believe it isn't a condemnation of homosexual lusts and behaviors.

Certainly it is true that many of the customs among early christians were meant to distinguish themselves from their heathen neighbors, but the condemnation of homosexuality goes back much further than Paul.

I regards to your eisogesis of Leviticus 18:22 you said : Which is talking about anal sodomy, in a misogynistic context.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that in the context of the surrounding passages so I don't know where you get the misogynistic context from. The passage (along with Leviticus 20:13) is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, and adultery. Romans condems women with women as well as men with men.

Now, you can say that in the 'bible days' sex not intended for procreation was frowned upon, that women were 3rd class citizens and all this is true, but it doesn't change the plain meaning of the text.

We could make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but what is the point of such a distinction when it comes to the bible? If a person has a homosexual orientation, given a good opportunity they are going to act upon it just as a hetero or bisexual will.

Besides, Jesus is the one who equated hatred (thoughts) with murder (an action)

[Talulah]

I personally believe the passage in Romans is speaking of women participating in anal sex. Since it is talking about male anal sex then the "likewise women" clause makes sense.

There is no other verse that comes close to mentioning female homosexuality either.