Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[jimwalton]

I did some research online about homosexuality in the ancient Near East. Here's what I found:

Law codes in the ancient Near East—including those of Urukagina (2375 BC), Ur-Nammu (2100 BC), Eshnunna (1750 BC), and Hammurabi (1726 BC)—virtually ignore homosexual acts. Vern Bullough notes that these law codes had a great influence on later law codes, were intended to deal with specific deeds (not general moral principles), and seem not to have been observed in all cases or at all times. The Hittites, who flourished in eastern Anatolia (Turkey) and Syria ca. 1700-700 BC, had one law that stated, “If a man violates his son, it is a capital crime” (section 189c). The same judgment was declared on father-daughter incest and mother-son incest. As Hittitologist Harry Hoffner, Jr., observed, “a man who sodomized his son is guilty of urkel [illegal intercourse] because the partner is his son, not because they are of the same sex.” Later, he added, “[I]t would appear that homosexuality was not outlawed among the Hittites.”

Two laws from a Middle Assyrian code, from Assur (12th century BC but probably copies or extensions of earlier laws going back to at least the 15th century BC 8), also mention homosexuality. They speak of a “seignior,” someone of high social rank in the community, and his “neighbor,” someone of equal social status who lived in the vicinity. Later scholars simply view these laws as applying to any Assyrian man. Table A, paragraph 19 reads (translated by Theophile Meek): “If a seignior [an Assyrian man] started a rumor against his neighbor [another citizen living nearby] in private, saying, ‘People have lain repeatedly with him,’ or he said to him in a brawl in the presence of (other) people, ‘People have lain repeatedly with you; I will prosecute you,’ since he is not able to prosecute (him) (and) did not prosecute (him), they shall flog that seignior fifty (times) with staves (and) he shall do the work of the king for one full month; they shall castrate him [lit. ‘shall cut off’] and he shall also pay one talent of lead.” Harsh punishment was often decreed in ancient times, e.g. in this law code including death and cutting off ears, noses, lips and fingers (Cf. A,5,9,12). The meaning of igadimus (“shall cut off”) is ambiguous and has also been translated as “he shall be cut off” from the community (G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, 1935) and “they shall cut off” his beard or hair as a form of branding (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, gadamu, G, 8) The preceding prohibition (A,18) in this law code deals with false (or unproven) rumors spread about a man’s wife sleeping around (like a prostitute); and its wording and punishment are very similar to A,19, except there is no “cutting off” and less blows are specified. In both cases, the lord’s reputation was at stake in the face of a grave slur that had been circulated against him.

Table A, paragraph 20 deals with a physical act done, not just a rumor: “If a seignior [an Assyrian man] lay with his neighbor [another citizen], when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him [the first citizen], they shall lie with him (and) turn him into a eunuch.” This describes a situation where a man has forced sex upon a local resident or business partner, who then has the option of bringing a charge against him. Noticeably, the perpetrator is punished while the victim is not; so the crime here is rape. Homosexuality itself is not condemned, nor looked upon as immoral or disordered. Anyone could visit a prostitute or lay with another male, as long as false rumors or forced sex were not involved with another Assyrian male. Still, both of these laws suggest that for a male to take the submissive woman’s role in same-sex intercourse was looked down upon as shameful and despised.

Pictorial and literary references in ancient Mesopotamia show acceptance of some forms of homosexuality, but wariness toward others. Anal intercourse was freely pictured in figurative art in the ancient cities of Uruk, Assur, Babylon, and Susa from the 3rd millennium BC on—and images show that it was practiced as part of religious ritual. Both Zimri-lin (king of Mari) and Hammurabi (king of Babylon) had male lovers, which the queen of Zimri-lin mentions matter-of-factly in a letter. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman, of a woman for a man, and of a man for man. (Lesbian love is not mentioned, probably because of the low status of women in ancient times, when women were basically considered property, and adultery was considered a trespass against the husband’s property. A husband was free to fornicate, but a wife could be put to death for the same thing. ) The Summa alu, a manual used to predict the future, sought to do this in some cases on the basis of sexual acts, five of which are homosexual:

“If a man copulates with his equal from the rear, he becomes the leader among his peers and brothers.

If a man yearns to express his manhood while in prison and thus, like a male cult-prostitute, mating with men becomes his desire, he will experience evil.

If a man copulates with an assinnu [a male cult-prostitute], trouble will leave him (?).

If a man copulates with a gerseqqu [a male courtier, or royal attendant], worry will possess him for a whole year but will then leave him.

If a man copulates with a house-born slave, a hard destiny will befall him.”

The fact that different kinds of homoerotic pairing will occur is taken for granted. What mattered was the role and the status of a partner, especially the passive partner—and the anticipated ramifications in each case. To penetrate a male who was of equal status or a cult prostitute was thought to bring good fortune; but copulation with a royal attendant, a fellow prisoner, or a household slave was thought to probably spell trouble.

Cult prostitution, involving heterosexual and homosexual acts, was found throughout ancient Near East history. William Naphy notes how male and female prostitutes had intercourse with male worshippers in sanctuaries and temples in ancient Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Corinth, Carthage, Sicily, Libya, and West Africa. Norman Sussman explains that “male and female prostitutes, serving temporarily or permanently and performing heterosexual, homosexual, oral-genital, bestial, and other forms of sexual activities, dispensed their [sexual] favors on behalf of the temple. The prostitute and the client acted as surrogates for the deities,” representing both fertility and sexuality in an erotic sense.

Mespotamian scholar Jean Bottero notes that cultures in this region considered sex “far too natural” to write about, or to boast of sexual abilities and prowess. Also, “We find not the slightest declaration of love, no effusion or sentiment or even tenderness. Such impulses of the heart … are suggested rather than openly expressed.” It was expected that everyone marry and bear children, but still men who had the economic means could take one or more ‘second wives’ or concubines. Also, they were free to visit the professional prostitutes of both sexes. In fact, Inanna/Ishtar was called a ‘hierodule’ (a divine sacred ‘prostitute’); and many male prostitutes, homosexual and transvestite, served her. Making love was a natural activity that should not be demeaned, they believed; and it could be practiced as one pleased as long as no third party was harmed or a prohibition was broken (such as the banning of sexual activity on certain days, and some women were reserved for the gods). In fact, William Naphy notes that a striking feature of the ancient Near East was “how few cultures seem to have any significant ‘moral’ concern about same-sex activities. … Most cultures seemed to accept that males might have sexual relations with other males”—although for a male to assume the passive position in intercourse (unless he was an adolescent) was thought somehow to make him less than a male thereafter. Laws only banned certain negative forms of homosexuality, namely, slander, rape and incest. Kings had male lovers along with their wives, warriors developed romantic attachments, and ordinary men customarily had anal intercourse with male and female cultic personnel. Also, the tradition of youthful rite of passage comes down from prehistoric times. Tom Horner described three types of individuals who engaged in homosexual activity in ancient Biblical times: (1) military heroes, manly types, who shared a noble love; (2) cult prostitutes, often effeminate and eunuchs, who offered themselves to worshippers at pagan shrines; and (3) average citizens, who engaged in casual same-sex relationships, even though one or both of them might have been married. (- http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html)

Based on all of that, we can see that homosexuality in the world of the ancient Near East was not totality pederastic, though that may have been a majority of it. We also see that it, along with heterosexual prostitution, was part of their pagan religious system, as it was in the days of the NT as well (notably, but not exclusively, Corinth). A third expression of homosexuality seems to have been homosexuality relationships between consenting adults by choice. According to the research, the end was not a marriage relationship, or even an enduring one, but merely another way to express one’s affections.

It is in this cultural context that Leviticus was written. In Leviticus, God is defining his own holiness and making an appeal to the holiness of those who claim his name (Lev. 11.44-45). Chapters 18-22 are written to show that because of God’s holy nature , there are many behaviors that break fellowship with Him. Homosexual behavior is one of them. It is “detestable”. Why? There is no immediate explanation, but the tenor and teachings of the Pentateuch gives us clues. The lives of God’s people are supposed to imitate and reflect the character and nature of God. If Leviticus teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that we must always be attentive to holiness, whether physical, ritual, or moral. The world, the Bible teaches, is depraved, evil, and separated from God by sin, and God’s people are to maintain distinctions between ourselves, as “holy” (separated unto God), and the sin that is in us by natures and around us by environment (2 Cor. 6.14-18.)

We are told here that homosexual behavior is a sin. It is unfair to make the text here refer only to pederasty or religious homosexuality, for neither the verse nor its context makes that point. But what makes homosexuality so abominable? We are given a few clues.

1. Our lives are supposed to reflect the character and nature of God. In Genesis 1.27 we are told that when God created “in his own image”, the result was “male and female.” Something about the differences between them, and yet them being one seem to be behind the meaning, possibly reflecting something about the Trinitarian nature of God: different, and yet one. The male and female complement each other physically, as well as spiritually, intellectually, and morally. There is something about heterosexuality and sexual differentiation that is “the image of God.” Ultimately, we do not reflect God’s image on our own, but in relationship, and that relationship is actually spelled out for us: male and female.

2. The ubiquitous image throughout Scripture of a lost relationship to God is a plethora of sexual metaphors, but primarily adultery and prostitution. Sexual “deviance” (anything other than a marriage relationship between a man and woman) is used as “Poster Boy #1” that something is wrong spiritually.

3. Paul, in Romans 1.26-27, speaks of what is “natural.” Even though women have two penetrable cavities between their legs, and men have one, it may be debatable what “natural” is. Genesis 2.24, again, lets us know that it is a man and a woman together that create a “natural” as well as “Godlike” unity.

[Newbie]

The article was interesting. I don't really have much more to say except that I guess we have to conclude that the cultural context was not merely cult prostitution.

Isn't the context of Leviticus 18 given in 18:3, "You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done i the land of Canaan where I am brining you; you shall not walk in their statutes"? It seems like the point is to be distinct from the nearby Gentile nations.

I agree that Leviticus is outlining which behaviors break fellowship with God. But we no longer avoid some of these behaviors. So I think you need to bring in a separate criterion to decide which are applicable today.

Also, the word "abomination", from what I understand, is not a moral judgement. It refers to ritual impurity. Other abominations include Lev 7:21 (touching unclean things), Lev 7:18 (eating the sacrificial flesh), and Lev 11:10-19 (eating unclean foods). I seriously doubt anyone is arguing that eating shellfish is "unnatural". There must be a reason why these things are considered unclean. One suggestion is that the purity laws refer to the mixing of different types. So you can't have mixed cloth, or you can't eat animals that have mixed-up anatomical features. In the case of male-male intercourse, the issue was a confusion of gender roles. Women were property in Israel, so to have sex with a man in this way was to treat a man as property.

You suggest some reasons why homosexual behavior is a sin:

1. I don't know what to think about the Genesis passage. The meaning is not clear to me at all. "Male and female he created them." To me this sounds like a simple reflection on the fact that humans come in two sexes. But I don't understand how you can get from that observation to the idea that only male-female pairs are legitimate. It seems like reading into the text. Could it have something to do with the trinity? I've heard it suggested that male = Father and female = Jesus, so that the male/female bond represents the natural hierarchy in the trinity. But the trinity is three persons, so that doesn't sound convincing to me. And that views is strongly influenced by complementarianism, which I find an unsatisfactory view of human relationships. What bothers me the most about this argument is that to truly reflect the image of God you have to be in a relationship. But that has the unfortunate side effect of making single people less than human. Jesus was single, but certainly more than any of us he was the image of God. I've noticed when people appeal to Genesis in discussions of homosexuality they do it in a very weak way, as if the answer was obvious to any thinking person. I'm uncomfortable with the obvious interpretation because it is strongly influenced by our modern conceptions of gender.

2. I don't have a problem with the idea that sexual deviance represents a lost relationship with God. I think this just begs the question, why are homosexual relationships deviant?

3. I'll need your final notes on Romans 1 to really respond, but it's likely (these are the views of the authors I've read) that Paul is not referring to "nature" as in "the natural order". He is referring to "what is natural or ordinary for the culture". This view is justified when we notice that in Romans 11 God acts "contrary to nature" when he grafts in the branches. Acting contrary to nature is not necessarily an immoral thing; it means that something is unexpected or out of the ordinary. In Romans 1, Paul writes about these behaviors as unnatural in that sense, and then labels them unclean, degrading, etc. These are judgements of impurity, not morality, and it parallels the judgement of male-male intercourse in Lev 18 as impure.

So much of the discussion of homosexuality as "unnatural" is really a discussion about patriarchy and gender roles. Men can't have sex with men because that would mean one man is "dominated" by the other, treated like a woman. But this is based on the cultural assumption that men are supposed to dominate and women are supposed to submit. I reject these cultural biases. They have no basis in science. People are individuals. If I like to play sports, that doesn't make me more of a man than if I like to do crafts. Yoga in America is seen as "unmanly", but it used to be that yoga was prohibited to women in ancient India! These rules and standards change all the time. Wheaton College doesn't even apply them consistently. There are women professors who teach New Testament to adult men. Isn't this a violation of the idea that men must be dominant? And all these cultural norms do is prevent people from being who they are. There are lots of women who want to go on dates on campus, but they are waiting for someone to ask them because if a women made the initiative it would be "unwomanly". I say that's absolutely ridiculous. If you like someone, tell them!

Nobody is a 100% man or woman. We all have characteristics that are more "manly" and more "womanly". Gender is not black and white (and neither is sex; there are people who are born XY but the Y chromosome never gets expressed, and there are also people who born with neither XX or XY chromosomes--try matching that with Gen 1:27!).

I also think that we ignore the fact that the Bible does not condemn same-sex romantic relationships. All it condemns (or seems to) is male-male anal intercourse. But not all gay men have anal sex (some for health reasons, others because they feel it is demeaning). We see these laws, and we infer that it must condemn same-sex relationships in general, and we also infer it must apply to lesbian relationships. I don't see sufficient justification for either of those positions.

I think evangelicals cling to this "unnatural" argument because it makes dealing with LGBT issues easier. If you can label something as unnatural, then you really don't have to argue why it's unnatural. If you keep saying it enough, people will believe it. In the same vein, we also claim that LGBT people can change, and I think we cling to this because everyone recognizes that if LGBT people can't change, it would be horrendously cruel to deny them romantic and sexual intimacy for the rest of their lives. Most people can't do that (Paul says as much).

I guess my main point, in response to all the discussions we've had so far (and am very thankful for), is that all people can do when confronted with LGBT issues is prooftext and proclaim, "the Bible says so". Nobody can give a non-sexist justification for the "naturalness" of male-female relationships. I don't believe God commands things for no reason. So if nobody can provide a reason for the command that applies to us as modern day Christians, maybe we need to conclude that the command was given for cultural and not metaphysical reasons. If that's so, we can safely lay it down.

[jimwalton]

I am REALLY enjoying this conversation. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I do need to say something, though, before we go any further (I don't want my motives to be misunderstood): I am not trying to persuade you of anything. All I am trying to do, my motive here, is to say honestly and truthfully what the Bible says. That's it. If I accomplish that, and what you get out of it is an accurate understanding of what the Bible says, then I'm a happy guy.

Let's plunge into the fun.

The article: Yeah, that's it. Homosexuality in ancient cultures was more than just ritual uncleanness and/or cultic expression. It was also more than just child sexual abuse, as we discussed in Romans. It's difficult, if not impossible, for me, to know percentages: how much was cultic, how much was pederasty, and how much was just one of the ways they expressed their sexuality. It was just helpful for me to know those details about the culture around them, since often the Biblical writings are expressions for or reactions to their cultural environment.

The context: I did some looking around about Lev. 18.3, trying to answer the question "Why?"—Why would God say, "Don't do what the Egyptians or Canaanites do." Here's what I came up with: The point is both lifestyle and worship that recognizes the true character of the true God.

1. Following the practices of the Canaanites was considered to be rebellion against God, denying His true character (his Name in Ex. 23.21) and compromising worship (Ex. 23.24-25; Num. 25.1-3; Dt. 11.16, etc.). Ex. 23.20-26. They are intended to be a people of God’s inheritance (Dt. 4.20).

2. It is personally defiling (Lev. 18.24, 30; Dt. 9.4), and even defiles the land (Lev. 18.25, 27). These things are not said about most of the other sins, for instance those in Lev. 17, 19, 21 et al., though it is repeated again in 20.22-24, for example. Instead of doing these behaviors, the people of God are to fear God, walk in God’s ways, love him, serve Him, and obey all his commands (Dt. 10.12-13; 30.16). One road was defiling, the other sanctifying.

3. Following their practices is a manifestation of stubborn pride (Lev. 26.19; Dt. 8.14, 17), “pride” being self-will and self-authority.

4. It is not up to each one of us to decide how to act (Dt. 12.8). God sets the standard by his character and nature, and his laws all point to his person.

"Behaviors that break fellowship with God": Great comment you made. To me it relates to #4 above. I refer to Mt. 5.17. Matthew 5.17 makes no division between the moral and ceremonial law. Christ fulfilled the whole law, making it all void. The sum of the law is to love God and to love neighbor as self. Jesus lived it to perfection, fulfilling the law. He is the standard now, and not the law at all.

Picture a volcano on a barren plain. It is the law. From wherever the people are on the plain the can look to the law for direction. It stands awesome and ominous.

When Jesus came two things happened. First of all the land, instead of being barren and sterile began to bear fruit, obscuring the mountain a little. Secondly, the volcano erupted and grew into a mountain which completely engulfed and dwarfed the original. This mountain is Jesus. Now we, rather than living in a wilderness, live in a well-watered garden land, and when we need direction we look to Jesus, and not to the law at all. The law is still there, but we don’t see it. It has been fulfilled. Now we look to Jesus, and him alone. The law is void; Christ is the standard.

How does this speak to the issue of homosexuality? Since the point is to love God, any notion of homosexuality as cultic expression is out the window, as it has always been in the Bible. And since the point is to love neighbor as self, any practice of pederasty or rape is out of question, as it has always been in the Bible. Jesus also spoke of the dangers of lust in Mt. 5.28. He affirms that sexual desire affects the inside of a person (“in his heart”) whether or not anything takes place externally. He also connects sexual desire with relationship, startlingly, by linking lust and adultery. In addition, Jesus' teaching about adultery in Mt. 5.32 (as well as the two sayings of Jesus before this one) moves beyond mere behavior to deal with motives. Laws, such as Leviticus, can deal with acts of sin, but legislation can't deal with hidden motives and desires. God's concern is that our hearts are in tune with his heart. You may be wondering why I'm saying this to you? Only that you, just like me, have to weigh your heart in all things. Don't assume this comment is loaded. I'm only trying to speak the word of God accurately.

The word "abomination": The nuances of this word are multiple, and are often determined by context. The Hebrew word is תּוֹעֵבָה (tow’ebah). “It [is] detestable; disgusting; abomination; abominable in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages), in ethical sense (of wickedness, etc.); objectionable acts; corrupt; diseased; abhor; loathe.” (Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon pp. 1072-1073; Harris Archer Waltke Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, pp. 976-977). The abomination may be of a physical, ritual, or ethical nature. The word is used of homosexuality, idolatry, human sacrifice, eating ritually unclean animals, engaging in occult activity, and ritual prostitution. See also Prov. 6.16-19.

This chapter has one item relating to ritual cleansing (19), but all the rest are of sexual relations, primarily incest. There is also the teaching about adultery (20), and oddly enough in the context, one item of child sacrifice (21). So to which of these categories does v. 22 and the teaching about homosexuality belong? I would say the weight of context leans towards immoral sexual relations, but I'll agree with you it's interpretive. The only time in the chapter where tow'ebah shows up is the summary verse (26): all of these things are "detestable". I think it's more of a stretch to consider it referring primarily to ritual impurity, given that the list of items in the chapter are mostly incest, and not ritual uncleanness. I agree that eating shellfish and other unclean foods are ritualistic, as well as v. 19, but other than that, I would contend that that's not what this chapter is about.

Gen. 1.27: My thoughts about the image of God are this: The Hebrew word tselem (image) basically refers to a representation, a likeness. It is often used referring to the image as a representation of the deity. Carved images, or idols, were strictly forbidden as misrepresenting God. Male and female in this verse, however, accurately represent God. There is no hint here of anything to with "coming in two sexes." As a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with "body", since man's body was formed from earthly matter (2.7). It would seem, then, that it has to do with maleness and femaleness as personal qualities (nature), rather than plumbing. But as far as "having to be in a relationship," we have to go to 2.18 and the "not good for man to be alone" stuff. We know right off that top that man wasn't "alone" because God was there, and Adam has an open and unhindered relationship with Him. So something else is going on. The verb behind 'ezer ("helper") means "save from danger; save from death." She is there to rescue man. Most commentators say she is there to rescue him from solitude. My opinion, since God is there and man is technically not in solitude, is that she is there for spiritual reasons, as God is said to be the "helper" of Israel. If that's true (and I understand it's my interpretation), then the primarily relationship between the two of them is a spiritual bond (hence representing God) moreso than the physical "two shall be one". So the text isn't saying that a person has to be in a heterosexual relationship to be in the image of God (as there are many who stay single, Jesus included), but that maleness and femaleness are what is the image of God. I think (and it's just my opinion) that theological truth is the foundation, after further points, about what makes heterosexuality right (because it reflects God's image) and homosexual practice wrong (because it is not what God said reflects his image). This though would progress on to what makes homosexual relationships deviant. If maleness and femaleness reflect the image of God, and since they came out of each other (2.21), it is that separate but unified reality that reflects the reality of God. That truth, then, becomes the base, and anything outside of that set is, by definition, outside of that set, i.e., "deviant," or "departing from usual standards." You're free to disagree. It's the result of my study, but I understand how much of it is interpretive.

Romans 1: I honestly don't see any justification for interpreting "nature" and "according to nature" as referring to what's normal for the culture. I just don't see that at all.

The things you mentioned about manliness and dominance aren't things that I mentioned. Maybe they're things other people said, but not me, so I really don't have any comment on them. I would never have made those as points of mine. And I've never thrown at you, "Because the Bible says so!"

I think we're on the right track that the Bible distinctly condemns anal intercourse and homosexual sex, especially abuse homosexual sex like rape and pederasty. Leviticus 18.22 seems to be a much stronger generic catch-all statement that I believe Romans 1.18-32 endorses. I have been trying hard to understand what the Bible truly teaches about it, and not just make a sexist justification for male-female relationships. My beliefs come from Gn. 1.27 and the image of God, Lev. 18.22 and its catch-all tenor, and Rom. 1.26-27's development of thought.

[Newbie]

I don't feel like you're trying to persuade me in that way. One of the things I learned in therapy was to stop taking things personally. It used to be that the idea of posting on a forum filled me with self-doubt and insecurity. These kinds of discussions don't bother me like that anymore. As for the implications of these ideas...that's another thing, but that's why I see a therapist.

I'll acknowledge that interpreting "abomination" in Lev 18 as merely ritual impurity is probably not justifiable. But I don't know if I can completely dismiss the overtones of idolatry in this passage. The first few "dont's" are all commands relating to incest, then marrying a sister of one of your wives (18), having sex during a woman's period (19), adultery (20), child sacrifice to Molech and profaning the name of God (21), male-male intercourse (22), and bestiality (23). The commandments are all introduced by a warning against the pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan. Then in Lev 20 where the commandment is repeated the same warning given in verse 20:23.

So is it stretching the text to interpret 18:22 and 20:13 in the context of the idolatrous practices of the foreign nations? I mean Israel had a big problem with idolatry, so is it justifiable to see these as references to pagan ritual sex? In Romans too we see the same (and perhaps stronger) connection with idolatry.

When I think about my own desires I think about how wonderful it would be to share my life with another human being. I am incapable of loving a woman in that way. I've asked myself several times if I could consider my desires idolatrous, and I don't really see how they could be. Wanting to fall in love with another guy is idolatrous? Maybe I don't understand the theology of idolatry.

The command in 18:22 is also very specific. I mean it condemns male-male anal intercourse, not any other kind of sex between men. How can we interpret this as a blanket condemnation of homosexual relationships, both male and female? Romans 1 probably doesn't refer to lesbianism, so where do we get the prohibition of female same-sex relationships?

It sounds like it all comes back to Gen 1:27. I understand your point about this not being about the plumbing but about their spiritual (emotional?) nature. I don't quite understand what you mean by both maleness and femaleness being in the image of God and how that relates to male-female bonding. If maleness and femaleness are both in the image of God, but they are distinct qualities, doesn't that mean that men and women are both lacking certain qualities of God? If that's true, wouldn't that imply men and women by themselves do not fully reflect God's image?

What do you mean when you say maleness and femaleness are personal qualities? Do you mean there are certain traits that are masculine (protector, provider) and certain traits that are feminine (supporter, nurturer)? I am hypersensitive to these kinds of arguments because as a gay man, I've heard all my life that my problem is that I am not "masculine" enough, and that I would become straight if I was to act like a "true man". This is why I keep bringing up all these points about gender roles, because it sounds like your theology of man and woman (and by extension homosexuality) is based on these roles. But I think gender roles reflect patriarchy, which makes me suspicious about this argument. But maybe that's not what you were getting at; I'd love to know what you meant.

I never meant to imply you were some kind of sexist and I'm sorry if it came across that way. And I definitely don't think you're throwing the Bible at me. I'm reacting to years of self-hatred and prejudice from society about what it means to be gay and bad natural law arguments improperly exposited from the Bible. So I know that I can get a little carried away on my rants about the inconsistency of society.

I guess I'll summarize where I'm at on this issue:

1. We have two references in the Bible which clearly speak about same-sex acts, the passages in Leviticus and Romans 1.
2. Both of these explicitly mention male-male sex acts only. Romans 1 is most likely not referring to lesbianism.
3. Leviticus seems to be dealing with the pagan practices of foreign nations, and Romans deals primarily with idolatry.
4. I don't really know what Genesis is getting at. I'm not sure it's really saying men and women have different qualities (of whatever type).
5. Paul says not everyone has the gift of celibacy, and it's better not to burn in passion.
6. Homosexuality is not a choice, and it cannot be changed in the vast majority of cases.

So what do I conclude?

1. Well I don't really know. I look at what Paul says and I think to myself, I definitely don't have the gift of celibacy. But since I'm not attracted to women, I just have to burn in passion? I feel like God wouldn't force me into that.
2. But then I look at Leviticus and think, "well that looks pretty clear". But then I remember that the Bible only addresses male homosexuality and it doesn't even really address homosexual love, just homosexual sex. I don't know what to do with that.
3. I look at Romans and it seems like an obvious description of all homosexual acts, but it's written in the context of idolatry and I can't take seriously the claim that my desire to love another man is born of sin.
4. I look at Genesis and think, "yeah men and women seem to complement each other," but nowhere does it say that man-woman is the only legitimate pairing, and trying to argue that they "fit" (physically, emotionally, spiritually, whatever) seems like an attempt to push our cultural conceptions of gender roles into the text.

Basically I'm really confused.

[jimwalton]

You have such a great spirit about you. I appreciate that.

Leviticus 18 and overtones of idolatry: I agree with you. There are overtones of idolatry the whole way, from Genetics to Revolution, er, Genesis to Revelation. It's everywhere, Old and New Testaments, all through the law and the prophets, the gospels and epistles. I agree that I would never dismiss overtones and/or undertones of idolatry. It's what my brother calls "The Babel Problem" (God falsely construed), and it's a great river running through the Bible and humanity. And you're right that the whole chapter is couched under the "heading", so to speak, of "Don't be like them there doggone Egyptians and Canaanites," but I sense that it's in many more ways that just religious observance. It's thick in general behavior and ethics, too.

The idolatry mention is in Romans 1 also, just for the record. It's in v. 23 and 25. Most people take idolatry to be "something we put before God," but I see it more as "What is it that we depend on rather than God?". In American they tell us our idols are money, possessions, entertainment and entertainers, music, food, drink, alcohol, sport starts, success, and the like. We may idolize movie stars, but we don't depend on them. In the olden days, they depended on their wooden carving to help them, to send rain, to heal them, etc. To me, idolatry is that spirit of dependence on something rather than God. Therefore, in America I think our idols are things like education, modern medicine, the economic system, etc. To me that also squares with Rom. 1, and the OT too. In Romans 1 people rebelled against God and trusted instead in their own wisdom, the lies they had traded for, and their own personal power and nature. That became what they counted on to get them through.

Of course the surrounding nations were idolatrous. Israel was the only Yahwistic nation, and almost the only monotheistic one, so idolatry was a major problem. I'm not convinced that it's justifiable to read all of this as references to pagan ritual sex, since most of the chapter is about incest, and few cultures, from my reading, approved of incest, and generally did not include it in their worship rituals. So for me it's too much of a stretch and not warranted. And, as we said, the mentions of homosexuality in Romans 1 seem to be more about child sexual abuse than about any cultic ritualistic associations.

And you're also right that, given the interpretation of Rom. 1.26 that we're convinced about, there is no mention of lesbianism in the whole Bible. It is a curiosity, isn't it? I would guess it's because of male domination, patriarchy, and that the man had the plumbing to be the perpetrator. As we have already agreed, I think, their cultures seem to have known nothing about what is being discussed now—that of long-term, loving marriage relationships between same-sex couples. Sex, from my research, was a matter of procreation or recreation (to put it bluntly), so they just didn't go for the permanent same-sex relationships that are being sought now. Frankly, it's what makes it so difficult to bring the Bible to bear in every situation our culture presents, because, as far as I can tell, our culture is trying something brand new. Mind you, that doesn't automatically make it (whatever it may be) alright or ethical; it just means we have to dig as deeply as we can and make the wisest, most godly decisions we can.

Back to Gn. 1.27. I struggle to explain what I think. I think that my being a guy goes far deeper than my physical body (and that doesn't matter whether hetero- or homo-). I think that I have an identity that is part of my whole being. I certainly don't mean masculine (protector, provider) and feminine (supporter, nurturer). To me those are sexist concepts. I guess I mean that there is an intrinsic gender differentiation that's built-in for us. The "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" idea. Despite the attempt by psychologists in the 60s and 70s to convince us that all gender differentiation was environmental, and socialized into us, it didn't take. It just isn't so. Guys (whether hetero- or -homo-) have a "maleness" about us. We don't have to be taught. We just think and operate different from women. I don't know if I'm making sense. To me it's not gender roles, but our nature. There—I used Paul's word.

Your summary.

Point 1: Agreed, but there are a few others (1 Cor. 6.9; 1 Tim .1.10), but they're about same-sex acts also.

Point 2: Agreed. Male to male, but most likely not referring to lesbianism, as you said.

Point 3: Close. Yeah, Leviticus 18 is about avoiding pagan practices, but I would say Romans 1 is about rebellion against God and being guilty of sin.

Point 4: Genesis. I tried to explain what I meant.

Point 5: You're right that Paul says not everyone has the gift of celibacy, and it's better not to burn in passion (1 Cor. 7.7, 9 ). Paul recognizes that not all are "called" to singleness. (That certainly doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't find a mate is "called" to singleness.) He specifically says it's a matter of self-control. While Paul does call celibacy a "gift", he never supposed that those lacking in the "gift" were free to indulge their sexual desires outside of marriage. But where does that leave the gay man in a society that doesn't allow gay marriage? Probably in the same boat as the heterosexual individual who would like to marry but hasn't found a partner yet. It's difficult for anyone in that situation to resist sexual activity. Again, Paul specifically says it's a matter of self-control. Never is there a hint that there's anything easy about godliness. And remember, no matter WHAT subject we're talking about, godliness is always the core issue.

Point 6: "Homosexuality isn't a choice"—the research has neither proven nor disproven that, to my knowledge. I know that there is a Christian group out there called "Exodus", and their specific ministry has been to help homosexuals change to heterosexuality, and as far as I know, they are not succeeding with that effort. I recently read an article that expressed their "failure" in that regard.