Your Suburban Casandra

...attacks on the gay community by Christian fundamentalists and rightwing family values types are again reaching a fever pitch. Never has so much aggression been targeted at trans beer cans and woke chicken. Because this antipathy is framed as an affront to deeply held religious beliefs, we need to direct our attention to the source of this anger: the BIBLE. Only an examination of the scriptural origins of this Hate-A-Thon can provide the kind of enlightenment we so desperately need.

OLD TESTAMENT/HEBREW BIBLE 

1. Leviticus/Deuteronomy
The most unambiguous Biblical admonition against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18. The passage reads: “If a man lies down with a male as one lies down with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They must certainly be put to death. Their blood is upon them.” 

On its face, this single Old Testament law is a prohibition against male homosexuality and it is issued directly by YHWH. But if we are to parse the language literally, then parse the fact that this law makes no mention of female homosexuality.  

So there's that.

Nevertheless, even this seemingly straightforward decree comes with caveats. First, if YHWH dictated this law to Moses, he did it about 3,200 years ago. I’m not the first to suggest that citizens of the modern world who want to enforce SOME of the 613-ish laws in the Hebrew Bible should be required to follow ALL of them. So if you are a literal Bible believer, then you not only endorse death for male homosexuals, you also support the same penalty for anyone who breaks the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2) or swears at their parents (Lev 20:9). Don't even think about mixing fabrics in the same garment.

More interesting is the topic of sacred temple prostitution, a wide spread practice in ancient shrines (let’s call them pagan for simplicity). Many religious scholars believe that the ostensible ban on male homosexuality in Leviticus is more likely an effort to marginalize competitive religious practices at Canaanite and other “foreign” worship sites . It was not a ban on homosexuality per se, but rather Yahwist priestly propaganda against unauthorized gods and cultic prostitution.  See 1 Kings 14:24 and 1 Kings 15:12 for educational passages you won’t hear during the Sunday scripture reading. 

As for the relationship between King David and Saul’s son Jonathan, that passage in 1 Samuel can be interpreted a lot of ways.  

2. NEW TESTAMENT
There is no language anywhere in the New Testament that can be accurately translated as “homosexual” or “homosexuality.” The concept of sexual orientation – including “trans” – is a modern concept that would have left the denizens of the ancient Near East puzzled. 

Jesus / Joshua ben Joseph
In the four Gospels, Jesus was extremely hostile to adulterers, Pharisees, hypocrites and scribes, but had exactly zero to say about homosexuality. Likewise, he says nothing about the topic in Acts or anywhere else. If the messiah bothered dissing scribes and hypocrites, it seems reasonable to conclude that he would have at least weighed in on something that is sooooo fraught for modern fundamentalists.  But he didn’t mention it.

Sha'ûl / Saul / Paul
That leaves us with St. Paul, the marketing genius who re-invented and repurposed Judaism to create Christianity. There are several passages in his letters where he admonishes his readers to stop with the sinning already. But is he forbidding homosexuality? 

In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, the letter writer condemns a long list of sinners:  

“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 

This is a general laundry list of sinner categories and (depending on which translation you like) I acknowledge that Paul is condemning gay sex. But the homosexual thing doesn't get special attention. The “abusers of themselves with men” are ranked right alongside "revilers" (no one likes a reviler and they don’t get invited to good parties).  

More importantly, let’s look at the context.  These epistles are written either by the man Paul or by a faux Paul (many of Paul’s letters are known forgeries, but that is beside the point).  

To be blunt: WHO CARES WHAT PAUL SAYS? He’s not God. He’s not Jesus. He wasn’t even a Saint for another 1800 years!

Paul was just a guy; he had his own agenda. He was selling his new religion. He didn’t even have a degree from Moody Bible School.  So while Paul seems to have a hard-on for sinning in general, he was mostly complaining about the relentlessly debauched nature of his flock. 

Now let’s circle back to lesbians. There is one particular passage in 1 Romans that is cited by Christians as evidence that female homosexuality is also forbidden: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” Yeah, even the women.

But “against nature” covers a lot of ground, as does the definition of sodomy. Oral sex and anal sex are considered by family values types to be “against nature” even in a heterosexual relationship. Some even claim any coital strategy that isn’t the missionary position is an abomination in the eyes of God. Because after he checks our diets, God doesn’t really have that much to do.

3. King James I
The monarch who backed and financed the iconic 17th century translation of the Bible was notoriously and openly gay (another reason why it’s good to be King). Théophile de Viau, a contemporary poet, wrote “It is well known that the king of England fucks the Duke of Buckingham.” He started out as an Earl.

There are large swaths of fundamentalist Protestants who insist that the King James Version of the Bible is the only translation that can get you saved. All others are corrupt.  And yet its sponsor was a sodomite!

So: ironic I guess?  

You know what I think? If you are able mine this skimpy scriptural evidence and use it to condemn a large and growing group of people who do no actual harm, then you just might be the one with the problem. Furthermore, if you proclaim your love of freedom, why are you so comfortable taking freedom away other people? No one is forcing you to go to drag shows. No one is making you read Good Night Moon.

And if you are so concerned with “grooming” then look no further than your own religious organizations.