# Homosexuality and the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527 "2003-06-04T06:17:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527/181 "2003-08-11T02:01:57Z")
It’s part of Christian doctrine that Mosaic law was superceded by the crucifixion so there really is point in citing Leviticus as a _Christian_ proscription against homosexuality (unless you’re also going to stop eating cheeseburgers and wearing cotton blends and start stoning people who work on the sabbath). Just to humor your question, though, there is a school of thought that infamous passage from Leviticus was not a blanket reference to all homosexual acts but a rather esoteric reference to Canaanite temple prostitutes who were typically male transvestites. "So a man should not lie with “…a man as he would a woman” may have meant, don’t patronize Canaanite temples and sleep with the drag queens…not because it was a sexual perversion but because it was an act of idolotry. I don’t know if this interpretation is correct or not but it _is_ an alternate reading of the passage adopted by some scholars that seems to make some sense. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527/182 "2003-08-11T02:22:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Svt4Him \* > \*\*That may be true, but salvation and God are both not mentioned in the original language of the Bible. So that’s a weak argument, as some versions do mention homosexuality, while some don’t. Do you then get into the argument of which is the best version, and I think they all are good. So some say male with male, some say homosexual…what’s your defination of male with male? \*\* No intent to play semantic games, **Svt**. I bring up the bact that the abstract noun is not used in Scripture only because so many say, “Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible,” as if it, and everybody else, agrees with what they mean by the word. Two friends who no longer post here are hot-tempered. That characteristic in itself is not a sin, though it can easily lead to them sinning against another in anger. Rather, it is a part of their nature. Likewise, my boy Jay has a character trait that the bad side of is stubbornness – but the good side is determination and steadfast loyalty. Again, an inborn trait, not a sin – though it too can give rise to sin. When our gay friends say they are homosxual and cannot change, they are saying that it is an inborn part of their character that their sexual orientation – what they find attractive and sexually stimulating, what they find as objects of romantic love – is directed toward pther men. (There are three caveats here: Obviously, Lesbians will say other women, not men; bisexual people will say that part of their orientation is towards the same sex and part towards the opposite; and “inborn” as I used it is not necessarily claiming genetic basis – congenital effects, imprinting in early environment, or something else entirely may be the cause. Rather the point is that it is not something chosen but an innate characteristic discovered rather than adopted by them.) Nowhere in Scripture is this condemned – in fact, nowhere is it addressed. Rather, the focus of the passages in Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians seems to be on engaging in same-sex actions as a part of that syndrome we both know as the “old, carnal man” – the hedonistic focus on gratification of the self, with no thought for God or one’s fellow man – the very crime identified by Isaish and Ezekiel as the sin of Sodm. Paul is very explicit on this in Romans: the sybaritic Romans of the first chapter are looking for new thrills, and normal everyday sex has ceased to tittillate them, so they try out sex with other men or other women for new kicks. (Can you hear the Rolling Stones in your mind her?) In Corinth the problem is compounded by the keeping of young boys as prostitutes. Now, I completely agree that it’s possible that those passages can be interpreted as direct condemnation of the act itself. But that doesn’t appear to be a part of what Paul is up to. Remember that in both books where he addresses this he makes the point that we are free from the Law, and dwells on the transformation of self to a life of love in the Spirit. Is it not therefore clear that he calls all men and women, whatever their sexual orientation, to a new and abundant life in Christ characterized by love of God and of all people – not a life of avoidance of that which is condemned in a divine penal code? I get irritated rather than amused at hearing that I and my church are saying “anything goes” – far from it, we’re saying that _your every act_ must be one that shows love of God and one’s fellow man. It is **not OK** to amass personal wealth and lots of consumer collectibles and creature comforts, so long as you avoid lying, cheating, or stealing – and it is not only not OK but a blatant violation of Christ’s explicit commands to condemn your fellow man for his sexuality as though you were righteous and he unrighteous. Quite literally, even the true and decent Pharisees of today know better. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527/183 "2003-08-11T02:47:46Z")
A minor quibble note: Some bisexuals will say that part of their romantic/sexual attention is directed towards men and some directed towards women. Others will say that their romantic/sexual attention does not discriminate on the basis of sex. (Personally, I consider these two different orientations, but my personal conceptualisation of orientation is wicked complex.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527/184 "2003-08-11T06:22:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lilairen \* > \*\*A minor quibble note: Some bisexuals will say that part of their romantic/sexual attention is directed towards men and some directed towards women. Others will say that their romantic/sexual attention does not discriminate on the basis of sex. > > (Personally, I consider these two different orientations, but my personal conceptualisation of orientation is wicked complex.) \*\* I think it’s probably just two different ways of articulating the same feelings. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527/185 "2003-08-11T07:25:26Z")
Not from my experience of discussing this with people. Some bisexuals are attracted to men _and_ they’re attracted to women; they experience these as distinct things, sometimes having different sorts of relationships with men and with women – either different in “flavor”, or only one appealing as a primary or marital partner, or whatever. (These are most likely to cite bisexuality as a reason to have multiple relationships, in my experience; however, not all do.) Other bisexuals are just attracted to people. Their attractions do not discriminate on the basis of sex; they have the same sorts of attraction to men and women, or consider the idea of attraction to one or the other or specifying an attraction based on sex as silly. ---
**Author:** ![luvtinayothers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@luvtinayothers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/luvtinayothers)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527/186 "2003-08-11T21:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\ ***Susma** , > > My aplogies, but on Friday and Saturday was _Shavuos_, a Jeiwsh holiday whereupon (among other things) we don’t use computers, so I couldn’t answer you. > > \*\* and you don’t f\*ckin roll… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-and-the-bible/179527.md?page=9)