Ship of Fools: Bible passages that are pro-homosexuality

Thread: Bible passages that are pro-homosexuality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028567

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

I'm aware that traditionally there are thought to be five passages that deal with homosexuality:
two from Leviticus, The destruction of Sodom, the mentions of 'unatural' relations in Romans and the reference to 'homosexual offenders' in ICor.

I'm also aware of how all these can be interpreted to very clearly show they are referring to promiscuity or male prostitution, and not to consensual, loving, monogamous relationships.

I'm posting this thread to ask if there are any passages or stories that can be interpreted to be (or are) pro-homosexuality. I know that the many love and equality teachings from Jesus are, inter alia anti-homophobia, but I'm looking for passages that specifically advocate homosexuality, as a loving and intimate expression of human sexuality among God's people. Do such passages exist, or not?

Thanks for your help! This is a thread about homosexuality in Scripture; can we keep it to that, please, and have the other debates elsewhere in dead horses? Thanks.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

The stuff about David and Jonathon, how their love was greater than that of man for woman, or however the passage goes.

[ 27. January 2011, 21:03: Message edited by: Nicolemrw ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The stuff about David and Jonathon, how their love was greater than that of man for woman, or however the passage goes.

That would be the obvious one. I've come across conservative evangelical men claiming that they talk that way about their best mates all the time and it doesn't mean anything homosexual. I am afraid I don't believe they do talk that way.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I've always been fond of John 3:16 myself.

[ 27. January 2011, 21:31: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :

Well, the terms of expression may have changed over the years.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

with special emphasis on John 3:17.

Romans 8:35:39 has always been a comfort to me. Paul waxing at his poetic best.

[oops - x-posted with koshatnik; follow-up meant to Spiffy's post]

[ 27. January 2011, 21:34: Message edited by: iGeek ]

Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :

[X-post Friday. Above was in reply to Dafyd, not Spiffy]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

KJV (cos I think its pretty)

quote:

1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

Gods joins two together

quote:

1 Samuel 18:3
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

This is different from gay marriage in what way ?

quote:
1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

The phrase "until David exceeded" is different from the phrase "until David came" in what way ?

What's more the story of the healing of the centurion's servant is sometimes held to be the healing of the centurion's catamite. Which would imply at least tolerance on the part of Christ.

[ 27. January 2011, 21:50: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

(OK - so I am teasing with that last David & Jonathan quote - I've no doubt it is a poor translation of the hebrew. But I think the first two are significant.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um, pardon me for butting in, but what you're suggesting would mean David was shagging a brother and sister at the same time. Which is just Ewwwwww.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Wasn't this the same man who sent some poor fucker to die on the front so he could get his end away ?

Perhaps he'd have been a nicer person without the social pressure to have a wife ?

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
Um, pardon me for butting in, but what you're suggesting would mean David was shagging a brother and sister at the same time. Which is just Ewwwwww.

Any more eww than a man marrying a set of sisters? For which there is Biblical precedent.

Besides, just because you think it's eww... so what? You think there aren't plenty of people who have slept with both of a set of siblings?

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

So, if I love my father/brother/son and give him a kiss, I am, by definition, also having sex with him?

It is only a distorted view of love that it necessarily includes sex.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, if I love my father/brother/son and give him a kiss, I am, by definition, also having sex with him?

It is only a distorted view of love that it necessarily includes sex.

Jonathan was not a father, brother, nor son of David.

It is a distorted view of sex to think that it necessarily debases love.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:
Um, pardon me for butting in, but what you're suggesting would mean David was shagging a brother and sister at the same time. Which is just Ewwwwww.

Any more eww than a man marrying a set of sisters? For which there is Biblical precedent.

Besides, just because you think it's eww... so what? You think there aren't plenty of people who have slept with both of a set of siblings?

Duh there's biblical precedent. Though you can't exactly say Jacob meant to.

And sure, I think it's ewwwwww. Am I not entitled to think that shagging two siblings is ewwwwww? Way to mess up the family dynamics.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I'm not aware of any biblical scholar (of any theological background) who advocates that the text states that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship.

Several speculate that 'they must have' but I'm not come across anyone arguing that the text says they did.

This is semitic culture - everyone kissed all the time. I suppose the saliva, like the sweat, keeps one cool.

The bible is hardly coy about mentioning sex and has a gazillion euphemisms for it. There aren't any used for David and Jonathan.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that David was bisexual just that there is no textual evidence that he was.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The kissing is nothing. It's the knitting of souls that's interesting.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The kissing is nothing. It's the knitting of souls that's interesting.

I've lost track of the times that parents (especially mothers) have used this kind of expression to describe their relationships with their children.

One woman I remember told me, when my wife was expecting out first child, that 'love you have for your children is even stronger than your love for your spouse.' Isn't that pretty much analogous to the comment about David's love for Jonathan being stronger than for women?

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
And sure, I think it's ewwwwww. Am I not entitled to think that shagging two siblings is ewwwwww? Way to mess up the family dynamics.

Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought you were saying that David and Jonathon couldn't be lovers because it would be icky that David was banging a pair of siblings. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The kissing is nothing. It's the knitting of souls that's interesting.
I've lost track of the times that parents (especially mothers) have used this kind of expression to describe their relationships with their children.

One woman I remember told me, when my wife was expecting out first child, that 'love you have for your children is even stronger than your love for your spouse.' Isn't that pretty much analogous to the comment about David's love for Jonathan being stronger than for women?

Analogous?

Well it's using the same words, yes. But using it for your offspring and using it for your best buddy are pretty wildly different contexts.

Anyway, one of the things that irritates me so much about about many discussions of homosexuality is the assumption that it's all about sex. It's not. When it comes to things like marriage, it's about love.

And if you want to lump the love between parent and child, the love between spouses and the love between two men, regardless of whether or not there was any sex involved, into the same category, I'm right there with you. The emotions have a great deal in common.

Just don't turn around and tell me it's different again on the next gay marriage thread!

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Anyway, one of the things that irritates me so much about about many discussions of homosexuality is the assumption that it's all about sex. It's not. When it comes to things like marriage, it's about love.

And if you want to lump the love between parent and child, the love between spouses and the love between two men, regardless of whether or not there was any sex involved, into the same category, I'm right there with you. The emotions have a great deal in common.

Sure, I'm right there with you in all this.

However, when discussing biblical texts it means that you cannot possibly give David and Jonathan as an example of homosexual sex. Your argument cuts both ways.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, my argument isn't the argument of others. I've never cited David and Jonathan with any confidence. It might mean something sexual, it might not. Not enough data available.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
Isn't that pretty much analogous to the comment about David's love for Jonathan being stronger than for women?

Not unless David was secretly Jonathan's father.

If your saying that David loved Jonathan as much as a parent loves his child, well, I'm not sure what that would mean, but right there we're talking beyond the bounds of ordinary friendship.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Yes, but since when has 'outside the bonds of normal friendship' automatically meant homosexual sex?

I think you need to draw some venn diagrams or something.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

When has being homosexual been only about having sex? I think we have several celebete gay members here on the ship; I know for a fact we have at least one.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
When has being homosexual been only about having sex?

I never said it was only about having sex. However, I'm rather puzzled how you can define homosexual without referring to sex at all.

This is what I meant by saying to Orfeo that the argument cuts both ways. If homosexual was defined in such a way as to not include sex then I'm sure all conservatives would be happy with it. That is, ISTM, the point.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I think we are rather losing sight of the OP.

The question was about what Bible passages can be interpreted as being pro-homosexuality. Passages about David and Jonathan can be interpreted that way. And that's about as far as it goes.

If there were any passages that were clearly unambiguously approving of a loving and committed homosexual relationship, we probably wouldn't have a Dead Horses to discuss this in in the first place.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think we are rather losing sight of the OP.

The question was about what Bible passages can be interpreted as being pro-homosexuality. Passages about David and Jonathan can be interpreted that way.

I disagree (on both counts).

Passages about David and Jonathan cannot be interpreted that way - there just isn't anything in the text.

They are very relevant when discussing homophilic relationships (which may well then have relevance on homosexual discussions) but in and of themselves there is nothing in the David and Jonathan texts that can be interpreted as homosexual.

Unless, of course, we describe to the Monty Python school of theology - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more governor, a wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat.

I'd say the same about Jesus' special relationship with John. I have no evidence to prove that neither Jesus nor John were homosexual, I just have no evidence to suggest it either.

There has to be something stronger than this even to say 'the text can be interpreted in favour'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I dunno, "your love is better than the love of women" seems pretty strong to me. Why even compare him to a woman? I don't think it really requires a lot of winking and nudging to get this possibility out of it. Not certainty, no. But it's a heck of a lot more than, "Nothing here to see."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Passages about David and Jonathan cannot be interpreted that way - there just isn't anything in the text.

Rather overstating the case, Johnny, and in my view misusing the word 'cannot'.

It's not that there isn't anything in the text. It's that there isn't anything sexual in the text. To equate that with there being nothing at all involves reducing homosexuality to sex again.

What there is in the text is a strong, intense relationship.

The nature of that relationship is, quite literally, open to interpretation. Even if that interpretation is entirely speculative, that's hardly the same thing as saying it 'cannot' be interpreted.

If that's not good enough for your interpretative purposes, then I assume you reject the countless attempts to speculate about what Jesus wrote in the dust in John 8:6, and why he wrote anything at all. There's nothing in that text to tell you. But that doesn't seem to stop people interpreting.

To me, 'cannot be interpreted in that way' should be left to cases where an interpretation is actually closed off altogether for some reason, by negative evidence. Not cases where you think positive evidence is lacking.

[ 28. January 2011, 04:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I dunno, "your love is better than the love of women" seems pretty strong to me. Why even compare him to a woman?

Good question.

David wasn't exactly a stranger to sex - how many concubines did he have again? It seems that David felt that the love he got from Jonathan was better than the love he got from all that sex with women. Whether he is talking about sex with Jonathan or not (to receive that love) is pure conjecture. Whatever David is talking about (and note it is at a funeral and so likely to be rather prosaic) his relationship with Jonathan was better than sex.

Out of interest I just had a quick flick through Calvin on this passage (to give a little historical perspective). Calvin is not shy of making a direct comparison here with the love of marriage (a covenant faithfulness mentioned earlier) but assumes that his love was chaste. If Calvin had seen need to comment on this he surely would have.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If that's not good enough for your interpretative purposes, then I assume you reject the countless attempts to speculate about what Jesus wrote in the dust in John 8:6, and why we wrote anything at all. There's nothing in that text to tell you. But that doesn't seem to stop people interpreting.

But nobody is trying to build an entire ethic based solely on John 8: 6.

The OP asked for biblical texts support homosexuality. I hope that there is more than just 2 Samuel 1.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But nobody is trying to build an entire ethic based solely on John 8: 6.

If you think that an opinion on homosexuality constitutes 'an entire ethic', your view of us is even more skewed than I thought. [Roll Eyes]

Seriously, would you ever describe your views on correct heterosexual behaviour as 'your entire ethic'?

Besides, I fail to see how that's relevant to the basic logic of interpretation. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with the specific nature of the text. It would apply to the interpretation of a newspaper report just as much as Scripture.

[ 28. January 2011, 05:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you think that an opinion on homosexuality constitutes 'an entire ethic', your view of us is even more skewed than I thought.

Seriously, would you ever describe your views on correct heterosexual behaviour as 'your entire ethic'?

Apologies - 'entire ethic' crept in there unintentionally.

I meant to say that no one would be convinced if you tried to base your entire argument on John 8: 6. It would be more a case of, once you've clearly justified your position from lots of other clearer texts, then looking at John 8 to see if it fits.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Indeed.

Well, in this context, it would be far better to leave the interpretation of David and Jonathan entirely open.

I actually agree with you that attempting to interpret their relationship as definitely homosexual runs into some problems.

My concern with attempting to interpret their relationship as NOT homosexual, though, is that it's likely to be based on a presupposition that homosexuality is wrong, and that therefore the Bible would not paint their relationship in a seemingly positive light if it were sexual.

But how do you get to a position that homosexuality is wrong? Only by interpretation of other passages of Scripture in a particular way. And of course, those other interpretations are strongly contested.

None of this is news. As I said, we wouldn't be in Dead Horses territory otherwise.

My own belief that homosexuality is morally acceptable is not based on my belief that there is positive evidence in the Bible, but on my belief that there is nothing in the Bible that says it is immoral. I've personally never put it higher than that.

In my view the claims of definite positive evidence and definite negative evidence are equally wobbly.

But the OP was not presented as a request for definitive evidence. It was actually pretty clear about that.

EDIT: By the way, I finally saw the movie Brokeback Mountain for the first time a couple of nights ago, and all this David and Jonathan talk is resonating with the film in a quiet eerie way.

Note that this remotely qualifies as 'evidence'. Sometimes fishing buddies really are fishing. I just thought I'd share the fact that Heath Ledger is popping into my mind's eye almost every time I look at this thread.

[ 28. January 2011, 06:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Something went wrong in that last paragraph. It should either start with 'Not' instead of 'Note', or it should have a 'doesn't' a few words in. Your choice!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If Calvin had seen need to comment on this he surely would have.

Argument from silence of Calvin. That's twelve ways of logically fallacious.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
(OK - so I am teasing with that last David & Jonathan quote - I've no doubt it is a poor translation of the hebrew. But I think the first two are significant.)

I would be interested in knowing what a literal modern translation of the hebrew passage that ends "until David exceeded" is - because the sentence has never made a great deal of sense to me. It looks as if the verb is in the wrong place somehow.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, in this context, it would be far better to leave the interpretation of David and Jonathan entirely open.

I actually agree with you that attempting to interpret their relationship as definitely homosexual runs into some problems.

My concern with attempting to interpret their relationship as NOT homosexual, though, is that it's likely to be based on a presupposition that homosexuality is wrong, and that therefore the Bible would not paint their relationship in a seemingly positive light if it were sexual.

Actually we are coming to agreement here - I'm not saying that the text is clear that their relationship was not homosexual.

All I'm saying is that this passage does not / can not constitute the evidence that the OP requested.

And, once more your concerns are correct and cut both ways. I'd say exactly the same about those who already assume homosexuality to be okay by God to read it into the text as much as the other way round. All this just strengthens my point. You cannot accept as evidence any text that relies so heavily on these assumptions.

I appreciate your reasoning Orfeo because I have to say that if 2 Samuel 1 constitutes as evidence in favour then Romans 1 is much stronger evidence against. As you say, to be consistent I don't see how anyone in favour could base their position on positive evidence from the bible.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I would be interested in knowing what a literal modern translation of the hebrew passage that ends "until David exceeded" is - because the sentence has never made a great deal of sense to me. It looks as if the verb is in the wrong place somehow.

The NRSV translates 'they kissed each other and wept with each other; but David wept the more'. A footnote says that it is following the Vulgate (that's Jerome), and that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It seems that David felt that the love he got from Jonathan was better than the love he got from all that sex with women. Whether he is talking about sex with Jonathan or not (to receive that love) is pure conjecture.

So we're agreed that when David is thinking about how to express his feelings for Jonathan that makes him think about sex with women?

David isn't just talking about sex on the side of the women either. (If you can't read 'sex' for 'love' on the Jonathan side of the simile, you can't read 'sex' for 'love' on the women side of the simile either.) David is certainly comparing his feelings for Jonathan to his feelings for women. They are comparable. He could just have said that Jonathan was as dear to him as a brother, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient for his feelings.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
David is certainly comparing his feelings for Jonathan to his feelings for women. They are comparable. He could just have said that Jonathan was as dear to him as a brother, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient for his feelings.

Ah, but the whole point of this discussion is that the comparison is ambiguous. By saying that the love is 'better' we are left uncertain as to what degree he is saying that the love is the same but better, and to what degree he is contrasting by saying that it is better - i.e. is it a comparison or a contrast?

To make your point the text would need to say that Jonathan's love was like that of women but better.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think we are rather losing sight of the OP.

The question was about what Bible passages can be interpreted as being pro-homosexuality. Passages about David and Jonathan can be interpreted that way. And that's about as far as it goes.

If there were any passages that were clearly unambiguously approving of a loving and committed homosexual relationship, we probably wouldn't have a Dead Horses to discuss this in in the first place.

Correct. And let's keep in mind that there are very few Biblical passages that show heterosexual sex in a "positive light," either - which is why I think the OP is a bit facetious. Hmmmmm.

However, we can talk about passages that show same-sex love in a positive light, and David/Jonathan is certainly one of those. Ruth/Naomi is another. These can be - and are - models for love between same-sex couples.

[ 28. January 2011, 12:34: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...However, we can talk about passages that show same-sex love in a positive light, and David/Jonathan is certainly one of those. Ruth/Naomi is another. These can be - and are - models for love between same-sex couples.

Not really. Unless you consider two friends makes a couple. I don't. A couple suggests a romantic relationship, and that aspect is not found in either case.

Returning to the David/Jonathan situation:

If someone says chocolate is better than sex, does that mean they are making out with a Hershey's bar? Patently unreasonable interpretation.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Not really. Unless you consider two friends makes a couple. I don't. A couple suggests a romantic relationship, and that aspect is not found in either case.

Perhaps true. But that's not what I said; I said they were "models for same-sex love," not that they were in romantic relationships. (Actually, they are models for opposite-sex love, too, now that I think of it; the Ruth/Naomi passage is often read at weddings.)

It's strange to me that "love" by itself isn't getting much respect on this thread. But, I guess, not surprising; it seems impossible for many people to discuss homosexuality without making sex into the sole issue - which, BTW, it isn't for gay people any more than it is for straight people.

[ 28. January 2011, 13:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I would LIKE the David and Jonathan story to be about two gay men as I preached on it in a very liberal, gay-friendly church. After researching it, I concluded that it was far more subversive because it was about male friendship.

I said: Some American theologians understand this passage as affirming committed homosexual relationships. But is that because we have such a limited sense of the nonsexual possibilities of passionate same-sex friendship? Rabbinic tradition insists adamantly that their relationship was platonic. In the ancient Near East covenants were agreements or oaths made to resolve differences between conflicting parties,
vassal and lord, or conqueror and conquered. The word love used in covenant making denoted the kind of attachment people had to a king more than interpersonal affection.’

Feminist theologians talk of texts of terror for women. This could be a text of terror for men.
Why? It’s about a young man whose father is trying to force him to go into “the family business,” - monarchy. Jonathan has no desire to be king. He keeps throwing away the opportunity through making impetuous moves on the battlefield, arguing with his father, stripping off all his symbols of office and handing them to David, making repeated efforts to save the life of the only person who can overthrow the throne.

Saul’s behavior is erratic and irrational. He often tries to kill whoever happens to be at hand, including his own heir apparent. Jonathan feels an intense amount of loyalty to a mentally ill father. He never abandons him; at the beginning of the story, before meeting David, he is Saul’s military commander-in-chief. Towards the end of the story. he resumes those duties . He has no ambition of his own, does not know how to do anything other than what is expected of him.

Jonathan puts personal affection before social and family approval. Saul is quick to judge, just as our society is quick to judge. Saul seems to assume that Jonathan’s relationship with David is sexual. He lashes out at Jonathan: “You son of a crooked whore, do you think I can’t see that you have chosen the son of Jesse, to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?

The two young men meet in a field, where they kiss and then collapse in tears into each other’s arms, sobbing.

This story makes friendship look dangerous. The men get hurt emotionally. Men today are so unsure about emotions that they avoid them whenever possible, especially the ones that hurt. Jonathan appears to foul up his career by feeling for David. Since male identity comes from what we do for a living and from success, the threat of emotions destroying a career is frightening.

David’s lament for Jonathan fits the elegy and soldier comrade genre. David is willing to embrace his sorrow. He doesn’t play the strong and silent role that so many men feel is appropriate in intensely emotional situations.
Instead, he tears his clothes and he mourns….he weeps…and he fasts

In many societies, male friendship was a source of emotional support that couldn’t be provided within a system of arranged marriages and in warfare, warriors needed likeminded and equally isolated men. Male friendship contained loyalty to one another, commitment to a common cause, and a valuing of the friendship above all other relationships.

Adult males today have few, if any, intimate friends of either sex. When men do identify someone as a close friend, it tends to be one of only two types: their wife or their best male friend from a number of years whom they no longer see regularly.

But we live with a continuing high divorce rate. When a man’s only friend is his wife, a divorce means loss of his entire support system during the traumatic period when he needs it most.

The primary difficulty in male-male friendship is how to handle the scary potential for intimacy, combined with the general male mistrust of making oneself vulnerable by telling the whole truth.

There is a lot of scholarship on this story in New Adam (1992) by Philip Culbertson

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

quote:
which is why I think the OP is a bit facetious. Hmmmmm.

Oi!

But, seriously, why?

Many, many thanks for the discussion about David and Jonathan. The reason I raised the OP was after talking to someone who pointed out that the 5 'homosexuality' biblical texts are usually the first point of call both for a Christian who is trying to show why homosexual relationships are intrinsically wrong, and another who is is trying to show that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships are intrinsically right. They all start with these 5 passages. And all 5 are, superficially, very negative.

What I wanted to find was a much more positive starting point - and something more obviously about being gay than just looking at the simplicity of Jesus' teaching about non-judgement (not to belittle those teachings at all by saying this.)

I didn't know whether such a passage existed. And now, having read all these comments, I still don't. [Ultra confused]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
...I didn't know whether such a passage existed. And now, having read all these comments, I still don't.

There is no such passage.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Jesus never taught explicitly on the subject, lesbianism is not mentioned - mentions of homosexuality in the new and old testaments are disputed (that is people disagree over the correct translation/contextualised meaning of the Hebrew/Greek.)

Here is a hugely biased summary of the most commonly cited verses. And here is a hugely biased summary of the less commonly cited verses.

Otherwise one has to argue from the teachings about mutuality and love in the bible. And conceivably from the widespread presence of homosexual behaviour across all species.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If someone says chocolate is better than sex, does that mean they are making out with a Hershey's bar? Patently unreasonable interpretation.

And what if someone was actually making out with a Hershey's bar? What language would they use?

Probably something about 'making love with chocolate' or 'having sex with chocolate'. Which is still ambiguous and capable of multiple interpretations.

My point being, it's useful to think about the actual situation and the language that would be used. Because otherwise, your interpretative method relies partly on your assessment of probabilities - this is why your assertion that a particular interpretation was 'patently unreasonable' interested me.

I'm also reminded of a certain Simpsons character who 'sleeps with the fishes'...

I don't think your comparison is 100% accurate by the way. Sex and a chocolate bar are not comparing the same category of thing, so the odds are very much against an unconventional interpretation. You need 'sex/love with/of' and 'sex/love with/of'. I love chocolate more than I love women.

Personally I love them both equally. In the sense that I've never had sex with either of them.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:

quote:
which is why I think the OP is a bit facetious. Hmmmmm.
Oi! But, seriously, why?

Mainly because for the Israelite tribe, sex - of some kind, at any rate - between men had been made illegal and the death penalty was attached!

So of course there wouldn't be any sort of celebration of sexual relations between men at least.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:

quote:
which is why I think the OP is a bit facetious. Hmmmmm.
Oi! But, seriously, why?
Mainly because for the Israelite tribe, sex - of some kind, at any rate - between men had been made illegal and the death penalty was attached!

So of course there wouldn't be any sort of celebration of sexual relations between men at least.

"of some kind, at any rate" being one of the key points.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

I'm no Biblical scholar, but personally I feel that the only thing that's actually condemned is "lying with a man as with a woman", which I take to mean anal sex, and that for cleanliness reasons.

Since anal sex isn't, despite the stereotype, practiced by every homosexual, and from the statistics I've seen, isn't even the most popular act by a long shot, it doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Er, WHY was Sodom destroyed ?

WHAT was it's sin ?

Careful now.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Rape.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-50, Matthew 10:1-15, cf. Luke 10:1-12

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Come to that, I've never been clear on how handing over your daughter to be gang raped makes you the only good man in the city. Rather than say, a child abuser or a pimp.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Volcanic activity, most probably.

But in the story itself, a violent threat towards God's messengers. The city's arrogance. And, yes: indifference towards the stranger, and towards the poor and needy.

(Or did we think the men of Sodom - or at least those who showed up to see who the messengers were - were all gay? That would be bizarre indeed....)

[ 29. January 2011, 18:24: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(And actually, this article by Ken Collins is an interesting read on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The summing-up paragraph:

quote:
God and the two angels came to Abraham in the heat of the day (mid-afternoon), ate a large meal which required extensive preparation (the main course was on the hoof), and had a lengthy conversation. Then the two angels set out for Sodom on foot and arrived there at dusk the same day. Later on in Genesis 19:13, the angels explain to Lot that they have been sent to Sodom to destroy the city. It is obvious that the investigation was completed and the fate of the cities determined before the angels were dispatched. The angels were not sent on a fact-finding mission, they were sent to execute a sentence. Therefore the conversation between God and Abraham could not have had any effect upon the fate of Lot and his family or the people of the city of Sodom. The purpose of the conversation was to educate Abraham about righteousness and justice, as God stated in Genesis 18:19.

What he's saying is that the actions of the "men of Sodom" were irrelevant to the ultimate fate of Sodom. God had already determined that the cities were to be destroyed. The violence at the gate is just further evidence that God has good reasons to destroy them - but has nothing to do with the "Why" itself.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, WHY was Sodom destroyed ?

WHAT was it's sin ?

Careful now.

It most definitely wasn't 'sodomy'.

Of all the passages commonly brought up as anti-gay, that's the one that is by FAR the easiest to dismantle.

[ 29. January 2011, 21:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-50, Matthew 10:1-15, cf. Luke 10:1-12

Can we add Judges chapters 19 and 20 to this list, especially 19:22-25.

A rather powerful demonstration that the gender of a rape victim really doesn't mean squat.

If Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, the inescapable logic is that the Benjamites were destroyed for heterosexuality. [Roll Eyes]

Therefore heterosexuality is intrinsically evil. [Roll Eyes]

[ 29. January 2011, 22:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(And actually, I forgot about Collins' examination of the verb "to know" in that article; apparently only 12 out of almost 1000 Biblical uses of the word are references to sex - and in every other case its use has referred to sex between married people. Sheesh.

And I forgot some of the other stuff, too. It's amazing this passage has been used for so long as a weapon to torment gay people....)

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

Isaiah 56: 1-8 is a favourite of mine. Verse 7 quoted by Jesus when he cleansed the Temple.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
Isaiah 56: 1-8 is a favourite of mine.

It's a favourite of mine too but I've got no idea what it is has to do with homosexuality - are you comparing gays to foreigners or eunuchs here?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-50, Matthew 10:1-15, cf. Luke 10:1-12

Only if you define inhospitality as the attempted violent gang rape of the guests. That is pretty inhospitable of course. Would probably get a bad review in travel guides of the time.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-50, Matthew 10:1-15, cf. Luke 10:1-12
Only if you define inhospitality as the attempted violent gang rape of the guests. That is pretty inhospitable of course. Would probably get a bad review in travel guides of the time.

As I understand it, it still does in Middle Eastern culture. A guest in your home is under your protection, and allowing anything to happen to them is an abhorrent thing. To them, that IS the essential meaning of 'inhospitality'.

(I've seen a program where a Yemeni Muslim critic used this as one of the reasons to explain to a former radical why attacking Western tourists was wrong. They were the country's guests.)

[ 31. January 2011, 11:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Or did we think the men of Sodom - or at least those who showed up to see who the messengers were - were all gay? That would be bizarre indeed....)

Rape is a crime of violence intent on subjugation and humiliation. Orientation rarely enters into it (just as it doesn't enter into it in the modern day prison setting). Raping the vanquished enemy (male soldiers included) to make a point wasn't uncommon.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Or did we think the men of Sodom - or at least those who showed up to see who the messengers were - were all gay? That would be bizarre indeed....)
Rape is a crime of violence intent on subjugation and humiliation. Orientation rarely enters into it (just as it doesn't enter into it in the modern day prison setting). Raping the vanquished enemy (male soldiers included) to make a point wasn't uncommon.

OK - but my point was to ask why this verse has always been used against homosexuals and never as a cautionary tale against domination.

But then, the Collins thing linked above doesn't even consider this passage to contain a sexual reference at all, so there you go. (AFAIK, Collins is a conservative Evangelical....)

[ 31. January 2011, 14:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
my point was to ask why this verse has always been used against homosexuals and never as a cautionary tale against domination.

Convenient scapegoats and cultural shorthand -- "Sodomites" and the subsequent unwarranted conflation of the word to mean "homosexual"

We're in violent agreement.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:
my point was to ask why this verse has always been used against homosexuals and never as a cautionary tale against domination.
Convenient scapegoats and cultural shorthand -- "Sodomites" and the subsequent unwarranted conflation of the word to mean "homosexual"

We're in violent agreement.

Yeah. I wonder how long this has been going on; do you happen to know if the whole "Sodom/sodomites" thing has been used for, like, millennia - or is it fairly recent?

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

"homosexual" has only been in coin since the late 1800's along with the modern concept of a same-sex orientation.

I suspect that prior to that, the focus was on the behavior from which we have "catamites" and "sodomites" as the word to describe the action.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Leo has it.

But I would argue that from a catholic perspective that covenant loving relationships of the type that David and Jonathan shared are part of the tradition.

I hate to say that a lot of the gut reaction against homosexual relationships in the current climate has as much to do with fear of that sort of relationship as anything to do with sex. Or perhaps the fear that those in the relationship may or might at some point have been having sex, or that people might think they were having sex.

The issue of sexual attraction and expression is different to that of life long love and partnership - that could come from a marriage seminar.

My conservative side then says let same sex couples live together, affirm such companionships as a church for both clergy and laity. Keep the issue of sex between them and their confessors.

My liberal side asks more questions about what sex now means to us theologically beyond biological procreation and what a fulfilled Pauline understanding of 'No Male and Female' means in terms of 'natural order', which we already apply by ordaining female priests.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:9)

From the same author as penned the only troublesome New Testament passages, this is all we should need. From it we can deduce that those who are married either cannot control themselves, or are not really all that serious about living biblically.

It is common to turn to gay people and say "you don't really need to have sex, do you?" as if we all had some secret wellspring of self-control totally unimagined by most straights. Thanks for the back-handed compliment, but I am afraid it is just as often undeserved as it evidently is for heterosexuals.

As for David and Jonathan, I think that they are a case of adolescent homoerotic relationships. They are not unusual: a phase, if you will. But this is by no means to belittle them. IMHO such a relationship, even though one or both partners go on to heterosexual love, is, while it lasts, as holy as any other and just as deserving of reverence from peers and elders. And I fail to understand the desperate voyeuristic curiosity of wondering whether they do or do not at some point rub erect penises against each other's bodies, as though that makes all the difference between whether the relationship is good or evil.

But then, amorous relationships have never been the brightest bulb in my personal chandelier. The fact that most people eventually find mutual love which lasts years and years is something that can only I observe with absolute amazement. It's so easy for them that throwaways, either in their own lives or in someone whom they presume to judge, are considered of little consequence.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Well done orfeo.

As Leo somewhat euphemistically put it, they weren't 'hospitable':

Ezekiel 16:48-50

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen...

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think the beloved disciple leaning on Jesus breast deserves another look. Here it is in the NRSV:
One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him; 24Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, ‘Lord, who is it?’

The translation doesn't mention Jesus breast at all, simply speaking of reclining next to. The Greek uses two words for breast. First time it is kolpos, second time, stethos. The KJV uses bosom the first time, and breast the second.

The NRSV translation is surprising in that it has chosen a very bland form of words, hiding the physicality of the Greek. Hiding also the parallel with the Lukan parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where Lazarus is described as being in the bosom of Abraham. (The NRSV says 'by his side' but gives bosom in a footnote - no footnote in the John passage.)

I don't suggest that Jesus and the beloved disciple were homosexual lovers, nor do I think John (the gospel writer) thought this. But he clearly describes a close same-sex relationship, probably best described as not being between equals, and he does so in language that today cannot be heard without homosexual possibilities being raised. Especially in conjunction with the fact that the disciple in question is repeatedly described as the one Jesus loved.

I think the NRSV has translated as it has because it is, if you like embarrassed. It might be better to say that it is aware of likely misapprehensions if it translated it more naturally.

The passage isn't evidence of a gay relationship, but a reminder of a time and culture when intimate same sex relationships could be expressed physically in public without censure. I think the difficulty in translating it today reveals the fears and judgmentalism that we suffer.

Today, the description in a narrative of two males holding hands, or embracing at length, or one reclining on the other's chest would almost certainly have to be making a point about sexuality, or be explicitly justified in some other way. The Fourth Gospel just doesn't feel that compulsion at all. It can tell us about these two and leave it at that.

I find that quite a challenge to our uptight need to stick every person, every relationship and every act into a box labelled gay or straight.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

In this case it helps to know something about ancient dinner table arrangements. At the last supper everybody was probably arranged on couches or mats of some sort, leaning on the left elbow by the table with the body diagonally out behind them. Three to a couch is the usual spacing, and you eat with your right hand.

This means that if you are so lucky as to be reclining next to Jesus (next to him in FRONT of him, I mean), Jesus will be looking at the back/top of your head most of the time. If you then wish to speak to him quietly, the only logical thing to do is to lean back against his chest, so your head will be lower than his though in the same vertical plane, and you can see each other's faces. After all, you probably haven't got room to turn around or sit up--at least, not without disturbing the diner next to you. But the lean-back maneuver is easy and natural, and requires no shouting of private questions.

How do I know this? Because my family of three watches TV in basically the same position every night, with Mr. Lamb in John's spot and I in Jesus'. Many's the time he's had to ask me something by leaning back that way.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yes, I've assumed that image, and that we are meant to picture that John leaned back against Jesus, his head probably touching his chest, his face upturned, inches from Jesus. Asking a question privately seems to confirm this physical nearness.

It could be that the phrase should be read as giving nothing more than the reclining arrangements, and that we should picture a 'proper' distance being kept at all times, just as 'sitting on the right hand of' someone doesn't actually imply any hand to bottom contact, but the double reference to breast/bosom and the different sensibilities of ancient middle-eastern society make me think otherwise.

[As I write this, you have 11111 posts!]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh dear! How loth I am to spoil it! [Smile]

But it's worth keeping in mind that "proper distances" vary across cultures too, not just in time but today. Well I remember visiting a Vietnamese home and sitting on the sofa, whereupon the lady of the house, after a little preliminary chitchat, came and sat right next to me and put her leg across my own! Total stranger.

Not to mention the handholding and arms around the waist various Vietnamese girls have initiated with me, generally in a very public place like an airport.

And me an uptight American. What we suffer for the Gospel's sake. [Two face]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I understand that in Russia, pre-Revolutionary at least, but more recently, too, it was normal for men to have one or two special friends with whom they would hold hands as they walked together. So the meaning of such things does change.

Still, I maintain that our reactions to the passage from John reveal that our current expectations and preoccupations are culturally determined, and rather brittle in the areas of sex and gender.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

There are references in Jane Austen to male friends walking arm in arm. Even in the UK cultural norms have not always been what they are now.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

If you think the passages about David and Jonathan are suggestive, you might want to look at the speech of Ruth to Naomi, one of the strongest statements of love in the Bible.

Posted by PonderFactory (# 16415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If you think the passages about David and Jonathan are suggestive, you might want to look at the speech of Ruth to Naomi, one of the strongest statements of love in the Bible.

You know what I find interesting? If there were any suggestion of a homoerotic nature between David and Jonathan, or Naomi and Ruth, why these accounts were not redacted or edited in some way after the Pauline epistles were circulated.

Just seems a little odd to me.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
If there were any suggestion of a homoerotic nature between David and Jonathan, or Naomi and Ruth, why these accounts were not redacted or edited in some way after the Pauline epistles were circulated.

The first thing is the weight of tradition. The evidence is largely that Jews and Christians have not redacted their scriptures. They've developed other methods of explaining awkward passages, of which allegory and midrash were the most common in the period of the pre-Constantinian Roman Empire.
The second is that Paul wouldn't necessarily have been concerned about homoerotic suggestions in the way that we are. Conservative readings of these passages assume that there's some trans-cultural behaviour pattern called 'homosexuality' that manifests in the same way in every society and generation. (*) But the context in which Paul is framing his understanding of the problems is different from the twenty-first century West and that's different again from iron-age Judaea.

(*) Apparently it consists of anal sex and "the gay lifestyle".

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0