Fear Factor, Not

Ok, if you haven't been reading the comments about my blog entries you wouldn't know it, but, I warned you.

First, let me say here, as I did in comments, that good debate is never a waste of time...ideological ranting, maybe...so I do appreciate your comments, even when I don't agree with them...and I'm sure there will be people reading this who won't agree with me this time.
In the entry "Fear Factor," we talked about marriage...well homosexuals getting married. Of course most of the comments were something along the lines of homosexuality is wrong rather than being about marriage so I figured that since homosexuality is what you want to talk about, well Ok. Just so we're clear, though, this is not about the problems associated with retricting the ability to enter into a contractual by gender.

Since most people in this discussion start with the Bible, I guess I will too. Now, it's true, as one commentator said, that it's clearly stated, in the translation of the Bible that they read (the NIV), that "gay sex is wrong" (I think they mean "unnatural" which is the phrase that's typically used in the New Testament). Ok, the Bible doesn't really say that "gay sex is wrong"...not even the NIV...that was a paraphrase based on how they interpret the passage. Of course that interpretation (and by extension the paraphrase) is supported by the text of the translation. So let's look at all this a little closer.

Let's start by all agreeing that the Bible we're referring to is a translation. The scriptures Christians use are in Hebrew and Greek, they weren't written in English, so it's not like the KJV or the NIV is "the Bible." The KJV and the NIV, and several others, are translations. Next, we must recognize that the very act of translating is interpretive. For instance, if I claimed that "it's bad," that one word (bad) could have several different meanings, even in English (which is pretty clear compared to some other languages). I might be making a reference to immorality, to cool-ness, or even to a state of deterioration. So how to we translate? Well, one thing we must do is look at usage in the culture to get a feel for the variety of meanings, and we must also look at the surrounding text to determine the context, and then we make our best guess. So, what does all that mean?

First, the texts in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) describe man-on-man intercourse as TOEYVAH. Most of the translations use "abomination" for this word...but it might also mean taboo, or even pagan (i.e. non-Hebrew). So just how morally evil is something that's TOEYVAH? Well, let's look at what else is TOEYVAH. Charging interest on a loan is TOEYVAH, so is shaving, or getting a haircut, or wearing blended fabrics (e.g. cotton and polyester), and, my personal favorite, eating non-kosher food (I just gotta say that you haven't lived until you've had a Pork Producers pork chop sandwich from the Heart of Illinois Fair...along with a lemonade shake-up -- that's why God invented summer). There are about 360 other actions, but I'll skip listing them all.

Texts in Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings are a little different, because they use a different word to describe same-sex intercourse, which appears to be clearly forbidden in Leviticus. This word, QADESH, refers to ritualized sex associated with a non-Hebrew temple. Now, there's no doubt that such action is forbidden for the Jews. Most translations, thankfully, use "ritual prostitute" or something similar in those passages, so it's a little clearer.

So, on to what Christians refer to as the New Testament. In one passage of First Corinthians Paul uses the word MALAKOI to identify "homosexuals" or "effeminate" people...maybe, it might be "soft," we can't really be sure. Paul was typically closer to the ideas of the Stoics, so it's quite plausible that he didn't believe that "soft" people could enter into the kingdom of God. Other passages in First Corinthians, and in First Timothy, use a word that apparently was made up by Paul, ARSENOKOITAI. Given it's association with PORNOI, it's most likely that this refers to men who keep a male sex slave rather than "homosexuals".Now it's important that we not confuse either of these with pederasty, which comes from a different word in Greek.

Now, if all you read was Pentateuch and a few of Paul's letters, you might think that women got off easily...and that maybe Paul, like Steve, was a fan of Lesbian Spank Inferno (if you haven't seen the BBC show Coupling, you've missed out on some really funny comedy); however, in Romans Paul redeems himself, sort of. In Romans, we find the only condemnation of something that might be considered female homosexual behavior...though we really can't be sure. Paul refers to women abandoning their natural purpose, but that might be something different than sexual behavior. We have traditionally interpreted it as such because the remainder of the thought in the passage refers to what we consider to be male homosexual behavior. So where does that leave us? Paul definitely thought it was...what? Pagan. Paul thought homosexuality was pagan...something "those people" do...something "unnatural" and therefore evil.

Ok, so we've talked about Paul, what did Jesus say?

In Matthew, we have a report that Jesus said something like anyone who calls his brother RAKHA is answerable to the Sanhedrin, but anyone who calls him MOROS will be in danger of hell, and later in Matthew, we have an account of a Centurion who asks Jesus to heal his PAIS, which Jesus does. So what do these verses say? Well, RAKHA means something like "effeminate" or "soft" (think of it as the Semitic langauge equivalent of MALAKOI) and MOROS refers to a homosexual aggressor. I guess that would make this verse in Matthew one of the earliest condemnations of what we refer to today as homophobia. As for PAIS, well, that's one of the words used as a root of pederasty.

So where does all this leave us? According to Leviticus, homosexuality is kind of like eating pork, (which Paul also would have condemned) and even though Paul seemed to have no trouble saying that "those people" wouldn't be in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said those who condemn "those people" are in danger of hell. So, I guess that means...I don't know...I, unlike others who profess certainty, will freely admit this appears confusing, and it appears there are no certain answers. One thing that I am certain of is that Jews in the first century weren't talking about homosexuality.

How do I know this when I don't know crap about all this other stuff? Well, we now know that homosexuality is a permanent, biological condition, just like heterosexuality. Now, you and I both know that first century Jews didn't understand biology on the same level we do. Behavior that fell outside the statistical norm was "unnatural" and was often associated with demon-possession and sin. For a people struggling to establish and maintain a cultural identity in the sea of Greco-Roman ideas, making such associations is really not so strange; however, using the first century Jewish understanding of homosexuality falls a little flat, unless of course you choose to believe the Bible, even when it contradicts science. (Now there's a discussion!)

So, what about what Paul says...is homosexual behavior "natural"? Again, it's a permanent, biological condition, so for homosexuals, yes...for heterosexuals, no. Of course Paul had no concept of this...any more than he had a concept that seeing the world differently is natural for a person suffering with autism (I guess for Paul that would be demon possession).

Of course, a homosexual living as a heterosexual, now that's unnatural.