A Church Reacts to Katy Perry’s Hit Song

I kissed a girl and I liked it. Does that mean I’m going to…. Oh, right. I’m a guy.

The screwy thing about Hell is how easy it is to get into!

I kissed a guy once when I was very young. I didn’t like it and neither did my now ex-wife. I was drunk, that’s my excuse. How can girls like kissing people with stubble? Yeck!

Anyway, I was planning on going to Hell anyway. So, if I have Kate Perry around with me for eternity, I don’t mind all that much.

You can watch the good Pastor himself defend the sign.

Thanks mikespeir! I loved that sign so much, I put it up on my (seldom updated) blog. 😉

Jill Sobule did a song a few years ago called “I Kissed a Girl” and it was much better than this new one. No one even brings it up though, it’s like it never happened. Her song was better written and had a cool video. This new song is just musical porn if you ask me and has little artistic value.

Joey,

THANK YOU!!!

I thought I must be crazy since nobody seemed to know what I was talking about.

I don’t know why, but I am always shocked a bit to discover Christian churches have, you know, heard top 40 songs. I kind of picture them as living in tiny pristine boxes, never to listen to the same things as us dirty heathens.

Also, I wonder if Katy is allowed to have sex with that boyfriend without the hellfire lapping at her her toes. Some of the most homophobic people I know have premarital sex, which cracks me up.

I think what the fundies find so threatening about this song in particular is that Perry is the child of two pastors, and used to record gospel music. If they can’t keep their grip on a kid like that, how can they expect to hold on to the others? (Of course – threaten them with hell!)

They aren’t so interested in Jill’s song, since she was never one of “theirs”

When love means hate, well, I suppose ignorance is knowledge and slavery is freedom.

Actually, the two references to homosexuality in the OT refer to male homosexuality, specifically -and, of course, the context is debatable. As I recall, the NT only mentions homosexuality once, in one of Paul’s letters, and the translation is contested – the word used may not refer to homosexuality at all.

Of course, none of this matters to fundies.

Bjorn – I understand their position. I’m even willing to ascribe it to their brokenness and sense of alienation. The thing is – I don’t care. I’ve been listening to them for half a century, and now, I just want them to shut the fuck up.

cipher: “Actually, the two references to homosexuality in the OT refer to male homosexuality,”

IIRC, there was one OT reference to homosexuality, which was specific to males, and one NT reference, Romans 1:26-27, which covered women as well.

I should mention – there’s a very good book on the subject, Wrestling with God and Men, by Steven Greenberg, an Orthodox rabbi who happens to be gay. He presents these arguments much more comprehensively. I’ve met him and corresponded a bit; a very impressive fellow. I like him a lot.

I was about to agree with Cipher that there are in fact two Levitical references to male homosexuality, but he’s already beaten me to it.

In neither case (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) is there any real context at all. They simply appear in naked lists of “do nots.” It’s that very lack of context that suggests universality to me. There are no caveats or extenuating, meliorating circumstances. It was forbidden–period.

Furthermore, there’s nothing to suggest rape:

18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

How can that read, “You shall not rape a man as you would a woman”?

I don’t want to discourage them in their attempts to be inclusive.

Yep. It’s a step in the right direct, isn’t it?

I’m 51, my mind is going, and I have precious few brain cells left to waste on this crap.

Well, hey, I’m 52. Will be 53 later this month. All my brain cells are intact–at least the few I have left…. I’m pretty sure.

…at our age that’s more of an insult!

LOL!

So wait, wait….there are lesbians in hell, cool. There are musicians in hell, cool.

But now there are lesbian musicians in hell? That’s it, I’m going to Hell!

On a side note, there’s actually a song about just that on my band’s myspace. It’s called “The State of the World.” Maybe I’ll meet some like-minded musical ideologists when I finally get there?

Of course the pastor thinks the sign’s “loving”–the fundamentalist’s definition of a loving god is one who’ll torture you for all eternity for failing to spend your whole life kissing his holy ass….

I’ve had a look through Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) too see the references to homosexuality. However, I can’t see how the church could use them to justify their statement.

Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version) – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Clearly it states that for a man to lie with a man as with a woman it is an abomination. However, two things, firstly Leviticus refers specifically to male homosexuality and not female homosexuality and secondly the punishment befits a crime which is an abomination, which we all know is to be cast out from the community and not to be sent to hell (Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people). So obviously this is not the Bible passage they are referring to as it specifically speaks to men and not women and purports banishment as the required punishment.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version) – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

OK this is even clearer still. However this passage refers specifically to male homosexuality and not female homosexuality and the punishment is to be put to death and not to be sent to Hell. Again, this cannot be the Bible passage they are referring to as it specifically speaks to men and not women and purports death as the required punishment. There must be confusion here as these two passages refer to the same exact crime specifically and have two completely different punishments – neither of which are to be sent to Hell and neither of which refer to women.

Romans 1:26

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

has the only reference to girl on girl action. It clearly states that God makes women lesbians rather than good, honest, Christian, baby making machines for male pleasure. Bad God, naughty God.

I think she should be more concerned with Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I clearly saw a picture of her wearing jeans the other day. Such manly vestements will send her straight to HELL as well as keep her legs warm in the winter. Warm legs will do her no good when the DEVIL comes to burn her. No good at all

I’ve had a look through Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) too see the references to homosexuality. However, I can’t see how the church could use them to justify their statement.

Uenuku Kaitangata,

We covered that earlier. There are, possibly, one or two references to female homosexuality in the NT.

Although,

Romans 1:26

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

has the only reference to girl on girl action. It clearly states that God makes women lesbians rather than good, honest, Christian, baby making machines for male pleasure. Bad God, naughty God.

Hoverfrog, now that I think about it, I’m not even sure this could be seen as a reference to homosexuality. “Unnatural lusts” could be understood in a variety of ways. The next line, however, is “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”, so it may be saying that the women behaved as did the men.

In any case, I think the Christians would say that because they didn’t turn to God, He allowed them to indulge their sinful preferences, thereby condemning themselves to hell.

The result is the same. God always gets off the hook.

Cipher, “natural uses” is extremely vague and could be used to justify almost any stereotype or assumption about men and women. I can think of things that are “natural” for men or women but not necessarily exclusive to either gender. What does that prove? Only that the writers of the bible had clear ideas of the divisions between male and female roles that don’t apply in the modern age. If it were written today we’d label it as sexist but we can only say that it was a product of the times.

There are three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. All three refer to preformed traditions, either Greek or Jewish. There is no NT author who placed enough importance on homosexuality to write his own sentence about it

There is an argument that homosexuality is “against nature”. This is not the idea of nature that we have in the 21st century but of human nature or the proper conduct that is becoming for a member of society. The attack on homosexuality could actually be against pederasty in the Greco-Roman texts. Pederasty involved forced male rape even by heterosexuals and slave boy prostitutes. You won’t catch me saying that enforced rape is ever a good or acceptable idea even when it still goes on today.

Pederasty says nothing about the modern idea of loving relationships between two people of the same gender. These sorts of gay relationships have been going on in secret and not-so-secret for centuries and have been broadly tolerated or ignored if not accepted. The laws against homosexuals are a recent invention that signify an increase in biblical literalism.

I Corinthians 6:9 uses the phrase “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” that most take to mean homosexuals. Putting aside the fact that homosexuality has little to do with effeminate behaviour the idea is almost certainly inaccurate. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word “paiderasste” as this was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. The word he did use was “arsenokoitai”. The exact meaning is lost but “arsen” means “man” so it is unlikely to refer to any behaviour that is between two women. The part “koitai” means “beds”. I could speculate that the word refers to male temple prostitutes, pimps, homosexual rapists or even masturbaters. I don’t think it refers to typical gay men though.

In Romans 1:26-27 the Greek phrase “para physin” is taken to mean “against nature” but elsewhere in the bible it is used as meaning to deviate from the ordinary or the be unconventional. Also the phrase “change their natural use” would seem to indicate that they were going against what they, and I mean the participants, found to be normal sexual behaviour. Perhaps the “vile affections” where drug induced or the result of a frenzied state of mind brought about by ritual. Again, not what we’d expect from an ordinary loving relationship between two people, no matter what their genders. The passage is really referring to idolatry and pagan vices and isn’t specifically condemning homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 uses the word “arsenokoitai” again. This time the translators have picked this up to mean “for them that defile themselves with mankind” but, like the Corinthians passage, the meaning is unclear and probably does not refer to loving, homosexual relationships.

Thanks to http://www.religioustolerance.org for much of this information.

If Christians are going to condemn female musicians for singing about other girls and enjoying it then you’d think they’d make the effort to understand what their own book actually says. i.e. nothing definite about lesbians and dubious condemnation of loving male homosexual relationships.

I just need to condense that down to half a dozen words and put it on a sign.

Figs again. You know how much Jesus hated those figs.

How do women reconcile their right to dress how they wish with the male gaze? ,