Friday, February 14, 2014

Ask a simple question.....

It's amazing how a simple question like "Why isn't lesbianism condemned in Scripture?" so utterly mortifies and flummoxes people who appear to have a very dearly-held stake in "the eternal truth of the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality."  Not that this affects them personally, of course - or at all, in any way.

Ultimately, it always turns out to be about enabling the church in its idiocies.  It's about propping up a rotten structure - because people have some sort of intellectual (ha!) or emotional reason for wanting to keep it propped up.  (Wait till I get to the thing about Aquinas.)   It's mostly just supremely lazy and incurious.

The worst thing is that every 5 years or so we have to say the same exact things over again, because a new generation hasn't heard the discussion before.  Not that this stops arrogant 23-year-olds from being experts on the matter, of course.

Various responses I've received, over the years:
  • "You are misinformed.  Look at blah blah blah...."  Ignorant about Greek words appearing in "blah blah blah....", and unaware of translation issues besides.
  • "Romans 1!  No wiggle room at all there!"  Well, maybe - except that for the first four centuries, the writers on Romans 1 - including Doctor of the Church Augustine of Hippo - believed the Romans 1 reference had to do with women engaging in anal sex with men.   It's not till we get to the hideous, vicious John Chrysostom - who sent the church off on an incredibly destructive tear in not a few ways - that this verse is read to have anything to do with  lesbianism.  In any case, I'd hardly call one (possible) reference out of 30,000 Biblical verses determinative.  
  • "There's not a single positive mention of homosexual relations anywhere in Scripture!"   Aside from being completely off-topic, it's also true that the Bible doesn't care much for dogs, either.  And?
  • In re: Leviticus 18 and 20:  "Well, the men were supposed to pass this information along to the women."  (This has been by far my favorite so far.)
  • In re: Paul:  "I took a college course; you need to buy the textbook to understand this issue."
  • "You know, it's bad to intentionally misrepresent Scripture" - followed immediately by a tacit admission that I wasn't "intentionally misrepresenting Scripture" at all:
  • "Since pedophilia isn't condemned in Scripture, are we then to assume that behavior set is acceptable?"  (Amazing how often this smear argument shows up, too.  And truly amazing how people can't seem to address the actual issue.)
  • "You don't really believe that these writers approved of lesbianism, do you?"  Well, no; Maimonides - while recognizing that Torah doesn't condemn lesbianism (which is, you know, the issue at hand) believed women could and should be flogged for it, for "disobedience to their husbands."   I believe he and others also argued that lesbianism was covered under Levitucus 18:3 "You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."  Bit of a stretch there, I'd say, and just a tad bit vague - particularly for an alleged death-penalty offense.  In any case, the facts remain:  no condemnation of lesbianism in the 613 Mitzvot.  Why?  Well:
  • "Yawn.  That's just legalistic."   As if Torah had nothing to do with, you know, law.
  • Oh, here's another favorite:  "It doesn't matter what it says; what matters is what it means."  Precisely - which brings us back to the initial question:  What does it mean that lesbianism isn't condemned in Scripture?   Didn't you understand the first time I asked it that that is the question?  Think, think, poor anti-gay Christians!

Like I said:  ask a simple question....

What's bizarre, to me, is that nobody seems to be in the least curious about this honking huge lacuna in the Church's sources for its "teachings."   Because, you know, it's actually, literally true that a lesbian looking at the Bible sees nothing at all  that has anything to do with her - and this is not just a rhetorical pose.  It's literal and real - and somehow still, we're all supposed to cheerily just go right along with this idiotic charade.  It's nothing short of astounding, really. 

Ladies and Germs, I'm honestly afraid that the Emperor has no clothes.

(Look for much more in this series to come.  Sorry.)

No comments: