How do the Fundies Reconcile This…?

We’ve wandered into sophistry.

I’ve always though this verse probably meant it is an abomination for a man to take the passive role in anal sex with another man. This is fairly consistent with the Greek and Roman attitudes toward men and boys having sex with each other at that time in history. In Greek and Roman society it was OK to take the male or dominate role in gay sex but not the female or passive role. That was severely frowned upon for grown adult men. This is perhaps one reason why many sexual relations were more pederast  in nature than strictly. It was more OK to fuck a boy or youth who was not yet a man than it was to fuck another man as that would be unseemly. In this sense I think it would be more akin to prison sex – or a type of sex based on opportunity within social acceptability – than actual pedophilia. I think it’s also worthy to not that homosexuality as we understand it today did not exist back then. Sure, there were gay men and women but the concept of an exclusive sexual and romantic same sex attraction was unheard of.

Well, I’m not sure where asexuals come into this picture — either they don’t lie with anyone, or maybe they lie with just one sex,  or maybe with both, but I think the latter unlikely, since they’re not particularly interested in sex. Now when it comes to hugging, who cares what gender you’re hugging?

Sophistry indeed. The only good thing about this chain of argument is that it might convince a Biblical literalist who likes gays (or IS gay) and is looking for a way out. But there are too many other reasonable readings of that passage that to try to use this to convince a True Believer is laughably naive.

I’d say the bigger issue is a twisted morality that doesn’t forcefully reject the whole “they shall be put to death” thing. If you can read that and decide that homosexuality is the thing that is wrong there is something fundamentally broken inside you.

 Oops.  Last sentence should read “…why Leviticus 20:13 should be taken literally”.  Sorry… I haven’t figured out how to edit posts.

The bigger question is why a tribal commandment applying to a few hundred bronze age men should have any relevance in today’s society, regardless of interpretation.

Of course, it’s physically impossible for a man to lay with another man as with a woman (assuming that sex is what is meant, of course), given the rather obvious anatomical differences. So I assume it’s just a euphemism. It isn’t too hard to figure out the intent. The thing is, though, it has been very common in many societies throughout history for men to be married to women and have men on the side. A strongly gay man might have problems with the sexual aspect of such a marriage, but many people are sufficiently bisexual that they could have sex with either men or women… so I think this piece of logic is a bit lacking.

 Are you mobile or on a computer?  If you’re on a computer (and even some mobile devices), look under your comment to where the “reply” button is.  To the left of that should be an “edit” button (where the “like” button is on other peoples’ posts).  Click on it and it will reopen the box to input your text with your original text in it for editing.  Then click the “save edit” button under the bottom left corner of the text input box.  If you have any other questions or are confused, feel free to send me a reply and I’ll try to help you out. No need to apologize, we were all new to the commenting system at some point. 🙂

Here’s the shorthand version:

Click “edit”
Correct text
Click “save edit”

Good luck! 

So men are expected to lie to women, but not to other men? 

That’s some Fucked up thinking. 

 And I wonder if any of those Maury guests are anti-gay Christians?  The idea that people can just pick and choose from their bible still baffles me. I am pretty certain that there is something that is banned in the bible that even the most diehard Christians simply cannot follow. But for some reason, when you bring this up to them, they just spout on about whatever their passion du jour might be.  It’s hard to reason with the unreasonable.

What about the gay Mormon guy who is married to a woman and is monogamous?

I find the cursing proscription to be interesting, since I’ve seen it convincingly argued that this and some other laws (like the commandment about taking God’s name in vain) are evidence of a type of thinking where words are literally magic and can have tangible consequences. So a child who curses their father or mother is actually thought to be sending suffering down on them and so must be punished. (Why that prohibition wouldn’t apply to anyone is beyond me, though.)

[Dons biblical scholar cap.]

Actually, this verse is equally offensive to both gays and to women. The literal Hebrew is even more confusing: “And with a male you shall not lay [in the (or as the)] lyings of a woman.” Basically, the implied meaning here is to not make another man a submissive sexual partner, which brings to mind the prayer that orthodox Jewish men pray every day: “Thank God I wasn’t born a gentile, a slave, [or] a woman.”

I think it might have something to do with a disqus account, not just patheos, although patheos might do it.  When I click on some users’ names, I get a summary of how many comments they’ve made in various places.  Other users (like you) I just get a list of their most recent comments.

As Stev84 said, I agree with everything but the last sentence. If you were socially passive in the ancient world (i.e., not a free male, which included women and slaves), your ass (or any orifice) was literally fair game. However, while you were expected to a certain extent to fulfill your societal obligations by taking a wife and bearing children (which was more to prove virility as a male than anything), same-sex marriages (official or unofficial) were certainly not uncommon in ancient Greece and Rome. It wasn’t until Christianity became the law of the land that homosexuality was outlawed.

Wow, somebody needs to take a remedial English language class. It’s obviously a euphemism for sex, straight and gay.  You also need to watch more pr0n.

For the record, I offered this interpretation with a wink and a smirk.

Nominally cute as a retort, but how would they reconcile that? They’d say your tongue is perverted by the devil and seeks to distort “God’s” meaning for his ends, and leave it at that.

Remember, we are dealing with the “godidit” crowd, for which no “it’s in the Bible” answer is too strenuous…

The much bigger question is why are we still applying rules meant for a barbaric, xenophobic, erotophobic, misogynistic Bronze Age tribe to 21st century people.

 Mormons are a whole other category of crazy.

I wouldn’t say that it was “moral.” Hell, Roman culture glorified death and violence to the extent that killing was entertainment. But the Romans were pretty laissez-faire when it came to social mores. So long as you paid taxes, showed proper reverence for the emperor, and didn’t try to start uprisings, you were free to conduct yourself however you liked. That citizens were content mattered to the Romans because a happy populace is a peaceful populace, so if they didn’t have to intervene, they didn’t.

But no one would say raping a boy because his social status makes it okay is acceptable. What it does tell us, however, is that our concept of gender and sexuality is fluid and changeable throughout history, which runs factually counter to what evangelicals are screaming about biblical manhood and womanhood (i.e., divinely sanctioned chauvinism and misogyny) being fixed and established by God from time immemorial.

In the ancient world there was no such thing as gender as we know it today. Barring a sudden change in fortunes, sexuality wasn’t a matter of choice. What mattered was your social standing and status as a freeman. That determined who penetrated who, and a freeman could not be penetrated (i.e., play the part of a woman or a slave) without calling into question his ability to carry his social standing. Few cultures outside of Judaism had rigid gender expectations regarding sexuality; and up until Christianity came along and made it a capital crime, homosexuality was just one of many sexual modes. The ancients would likely be baffled by conservative Christians scowling at a same-sex couple. “What’s the big deal?” they might say. “They aren’t hurting anyone.”

So they were asking different questions that had nothing to do with morality. It wasn’t so much “Who are you attracted to?” as it was “Who are you allowed to fuck?” If you were really lucky, you’d end up as the favorite slave of some rich nobleman who would take you as his lover. There are numerous examples of this happening in Greece and Rome.

“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood
shall be upon them.”

Of course, they could mean “at the same time”. So they’re talking about threesomes, right?

 I think Rich is right.  I’m commenting via an actual disqus account.  They’re not hard to set up and that allows for editing then in the way I described. 🙂  Sorry you’re having a hard time with it 🙁

I disagree. There are objective measures by which you can compare moral systems. For example moral systems with rules that have double standards are objectively unfair.

Did the acceptance of sex between men and boys in ancient Rome or Greece cause societal problems? None that I’m aware of, so I’d consider this to be fine (by the standards of the time).

When you say ‘society’ you just mean the men, right?  Not the boys?

You do not understand what matters of fact are if you believe this. How the Moon was formed is a matter of fact. Whether the Earth was ever flooded is a matter of fact. The question of absolute versus relative morality is not… which is why philosophers have been arguing over it for as long as there have been philosophers. It isn’t a question that can be answered factually.

I wasn’t making a statement of absolute morality vs. relative morality.  You are out of your depth here.  

The question of absolute vs. relative (I think you mean subjective) morality is a false dicotomy, in that both positions are false (and can be proven to be false by example). 

It is you who chose one of those two false positions, subjective morality.   There are many other positions and my statements are in fact consistent with those.    I didn’t posit any abosolute moral system.   I showed that your subjectivist clams were false as has the other commenter.

Your statement that “You can’t compare the morals of one society to those of another, except abstractly.” is false.

We can compare the morals of say southern slavery to that of the north and objectively say that one is better than the other.   You on the other hand would say:
“In the Southern US, black slavery was a moral act. We don’t generally see it that way today. Morals change. You can’t compare the morals of one society to those of another, except abstractly.” 

That’s total nonsense, and I don’t have to believe that there is one single best and absolute moral system to have shown you to be wrong.

You have in  claimed that  for every moral system there is no way to order any two of them as to the superior and inferior.   This is false.

I can certainly come up with two moral systems that  cannot be ordered, for example one where you are allowed to rape young boys, vs an identical one where instead you get to rape young girls.   You cannot order those two systems on a moral scale.  

However that does not mean every pair cannot be ordered.   A simple example would be our current legal system in the US vs. the same exact system except allowing for black slavery.   Obviously the former can be ranked morally superior to the latter.  

One can also rank on specific subjects.   Like one society having a morally superior set of rules on boy rape regardless of other issues.