From: vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Tackling the Bible (longish)
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:33:10 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College

This is a discussion I've had several times, so I'll share my approach.

The Old Testament is, of course, very easy to disregard.  They'll say 'You must
not lie with a man as with a woman (Leviticus 18:22)' to which you can snort
derisively and say 'Yeah, and two pages earlier it outlines the Kosher dietary
laws, and two pages later it says that if you get mildew on your shower tiles
you have to have a priest seal your house for a week.'  If they don't keep
all of the myriad absurdities (no offence, anyone) Leviticus puts forward, they
are hypocrites to maintain that one.  ('Umm, Jesus fulfilled the old law ...
except the bits that I still agree with ...')

The New Testament is more problematic.  Their support comes primarily from
Romans 1:26-27, wherein Paul says 'That is why God has abandoned them to 
degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to 
unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to 
be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and
getting an appropriate reward for their perversions.'

They see two ramifications of this: that homosexuality is Bad, and that
homosexuality is Unnatural.  (Paul explicitly states the latter, and the
context, undeniably, implies the former).  Both can be (and presumably will
need to be, before the discussion is over) successfully attacked.

Homosexuality is Unnatural.  Paul says this explicitly, but (as anyone who has
ever owned animals can tell you) homosexuality does, in fact, occur in nature.
(I recommend you to the article about the sexuality of bonobos in the June 1992
issue of _Discover_ magazine for a particular case of primate bisexuality). 
When they say 'Yes, but surely we are better than mere animals!' (a non-
sequitor, I know, but in my experience a common one) you can say 'first of all,
I didn't say that, all I said is that homosexuality cannot be unnatural, because
it occurs in nature, and secondly, animals are heterosexual, too -- should we
be "better than" heterosexuality as well?'

Further, in First Corinthians 11:13-15 Paul says 'Ask yourself ... whether
nature itself does not tell you that long hair on a man is nothing to be
admired, while a woman, who was given her hair as a covering, thinks long hair
her glory?'  

'Nature itself' tells me no such thing.  Societal fashion tells me that. 
Obviously, Paul has no clue about what is and isn't natural, and mistakenly
calls unnatural that which is merely contrary to his arbitrary sense of
fashion.  Every Christian I've discussed this with has conceded that, yes,
maybe Paul's use of the word Unnatural was misinformed.  'However,' they
maintain, 'it's still _bad_.'

Why is it bad?  Because Paul (implicitly) says so.  There are many other things
that Paul says is bad.  'For a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered is
a sign of disrespect to his head.  For a woman, however, it is a sign of 
disrespect to her head is she prays or prophesies unveiled; she might as well 
have her hair shaved off (First Corinthians 11:4-5).'  Do they obey this?  How 
about 'As in all churches of the saints, women are to remain quiet at meetings 
since they have no permission to speak; they must keep in the background as the
Law itself lays it down.  If they have any questions to ask, they should ask 
their husbands at home: it is a shame for a woman to raise her voice at meetings
(First Corinthians 14:33-35)'?  No?  Then they're doing the same thing with
Paul's teachings as they are with Leviticus -- 'it's all Divinely Inspired(TM),
but only the bits that I agree with apply to us today.'  

I can't imagine anyone mentally dead enough to not see the hypocrisy in such a
stance, but if there exists such a person, I don't care what he or she thinks
anyway.

Vincent

Disclaimers:  
I've focused on male homosexuality because that's the focus that the argument 
has in my experience taken.  The arguments can of course be expanded -- the 
text is about actions, anyway, and says nothing about orientation.
When I talk about what 'they' think, and what 'they' do, I am speaking only
from my experiences, and am not making absolute generalizations.  Don't take it
personally.
All quotations are from the Jerusalem Bible, which is not my Bible of choice. 
If you can, argue from the King James, which is typically not _their_ Bible of
choice.

This has been a (perhaps overdue) de-muffining, by the way.  :-)