From one very narrow and simplistic perspective, the Old Testament is clear cut on its stance concerning homosexuality. Leviticus 20:13 says, in so many words, that sexual bonding between two men is "an abomination" and for anti-gay activists this has been enough. From an educated standpoint, the popular interpretation of this passage is inadequate. Though I cannot speak for New Testament scripture on the topic, I would like to offer my own theological argument for why Leviticus 20:13 should not be considered presently valid.
The biggest fallacy of biblical exegesis is the assumption that the bible is a static document, that all statements within it are to be considered true in perpetuity. This has led many to point out that the bible is often self-contradictory, and they're right. I can think of another list of rules that is also self-contradictory- The Constitution of the United States of America. After all, isn't that what an amendment is, a contradiction of an earlier statement within the same text? Whether you believe it is literally true or merely a compilation of cultural myth, the bible is clearly a linear story. It is no more logical to say that all rules mentioned in the bible are forever true than it is to say that Moses is simultaneously a baby on the Nile and a dying man on Mt. Nebo.
There are also plenty of instances in the Old Testament of existing rules being overturned upon review. Take the case of the three daughters of Zelophehad. When the man died, his daughters (being his only living kin) petitioned to claim his property as an inheritance despite the existing law that stated only male heirs could claim familial property. The final ruling overturned the existing law and the daughters each claimed an equal portion of their family estate. This is in clear contradiction of previous inheritance claims such as the dispute between Jacob and Esau. Plainly, the law changed when a logical argument against it was tried by impartial judges.
Though there is no instance of the ruling in Leviticus 20:13 being challenged in scripture, the text gives us precedence for the challenge of any and all laws, with the possible exclusion of the Ten Commandments. Considering that no real reason for the law in Leviticus 20:13 is present, a moral argument against its ruling can be made.
It is my contention that in prohibiting homosexual unions, Leviticus 20:13 results in a much greater sin. According to several debates in the Talmud between the great sages (such as in tractate Pesachim), it is unacceptable to follow a rule that directly results in greater harm than the rule itself prevents. Given the conditions of our modern society, prohibiting same sex unions results in several different kinds of harm. For instance, if we allowed same sex couples to adopt orphaned children and thus be recognized as a family unit, we would have fewer children growing up without guidance and care. Is it not a greater sin to leave a child orphaned than to engage in a same sex union that does not clearly harm anyone?
But beyond the argument for harm vs. benefit is the fact that the rule in Leviticus 20:13 is meant for people in a dramatically different circumstance than our own society. The rule appears alongside a series of laws about maintaining purity, not mixing things of different qualities. These are laws intended for a very small, fledgling nation that was under the constant threat of assimilation into other cultures. The purity laws are safeguards against foreign domination, thus no longer relevant in the 21st century just as all biblical rules concerning animal sacrifice have long been considered ill-suited for righteous people.
As there is no scriptural evidence for the harm of same sex unions and a clear imbalance in the harm to benefit ratio of their prohibition, I believe that it is theologically sound to suggest that the law stated in Leviticus 20:13 is no longer valid and it should not be considered a measure of sin unless someone can produce a reasoned argument in support of the initial ruling.
Comments
Cohanim
Leviticus is technically the combination of two versions of the same text; this passage is essentially a variation of Leviticus 18:22. Moreover, Leviticus is a set of rules intended for the priests, the Cohanim, who need very specific purity laws.
It is specifically a prohibition against anal sex between men. Moreover, if we look at the earlier verse Leviticus 18:22, the context there is one admonishing against following the practices of others, like idolatry. Historically, it's importatnt to note that the early Jews were surrounded by cultures practicing temple religions, with many gods/goddesses and ritualized sex at the temple, including male and female temple prostitutes. You'll note the references to Moloch in the same section—a deity that we know was in fact associated with public sex acts, including m/m sex acts.
One of the most rational discussions of both versions, a discussion written from the neutral point of view of a textual analysis in a historic and linguistic context is here, at Religious Tolerance.org.
I'll just say, if I were gay,
I'll just say, if I were gay, I would reject the entire mess of Christianity as a hostile and disorganized faith. These discussions of one law supeceding another or not being relevant today, are totally pointless. Morality does NOT depend on the Bible, so toss the whole thing. There are some relevant items in there, but they are not exclusive to Christianity.
Who is being hurt? That is the only question to ask. Not what Leviticus 20 or Book 12 says. Its gibberish. If both people are consenting, in love, respectful who cares what a tribe of ancient neolithic people believe. There are also other more popular faiths that don't throw hateful verses around to join.
Rise above dogma and true morality will become clear.
Precisely!
Precisely!
It should be noted that a
It should be noted that a Talmudic approach has nothing to do with Christianity, as it is a strictly Jewish academic tack. The purpose of using theological concepts to argue for things like the acceptance of homosexuality is to prove that the biblical exegesis anti-gay individuals use is not only immoral, it's philosophically incorrect. The advancement of religious philosophy through discussion is the very definition of rising above dogma. It's easy to throw out an entire faith because of one disagreement, but it's far more valuable to allow the faith itself to debunk the bigotry of others who would twist it.
Well, yes
It should be noted that a Talmudic approach has nothing to do with Christianity, as it is a strictly Jewish academic tack.
Seriously, that's the crux of the issue right there; the OT is not the Law for Christians; it isn't their book.
But it gets tricky from a Christian perspective since to a Christian, Christ is the Messiah, so that there's an assumption that the OT references are "types" that "figure" events in the NT.
One of the joys about Judaism and its approaches to the laws set forth in the Torah is that you have centuries of careful thought and debate and interpretation is sincere desire to be a good Jew.
Christianity lost that, thanks to Paul, and it's a huge loss. And an even greater loss is that Christianst can't read the NT as written; they really can't. And the scribal traditions around Torah copying are completely lacking, and always have been, in Christian contexts.
Perfectly pent subject
Perfectly pent subject material, Really enjoyed examining.