"Don't Flaunt It In My Face!" The REAL Reason Behind Opposing Gay Marriage

If gay marriage threatens your marriage, it's probably because one of you is gay and your gay spouse is thinking, "What the hell am I doing hiding in a sham straight marriage when gay people are finding lasting love and legal recognition? Let me go find my true happiness and soul mate before I croak!"

If both of you are straight, it probably won't do a damn thing. Except increase the likelihood you will run into an gay person or couple at your PTA meeting or company barbecue. Which you always used to do by the way. You just didn't realize they were gay because they were hiding in a sham straight marriage or were the perpetual bachelor whose love life was a mystery in large part because they took care not to get too attached to anyone for too long, going instead for multiple partners. Something happens when you fall in love, stick to someone and place them above all others, in your life. That's when it gets really hard to be closeted. Living together, being seen together all the time and getting into situations where you have to speak for the other are going to raise certain questions. You will be outed! Ask a heterosexual, married couple to try and hide their relationship and spouse from the world, if they think it is so easy to do. Why do gay marriage opponents want LGBT people to hide from the world? Why their constant refrain of, "Just don't flaunt it in our faces."

Because VISIBILITY makes something become common-place and accepted over time. You know, like how you don't bat an eyelash anymore at an interracial couple. We forget it wasn't even that long ago when an interracial kiss between Captain Kirk and Uhura on prime time television caused a rain of hate mail to the studio from these "Godly" folk, claiming to be the protectors of tradition.

"The CHILDREN! Think of the CHILDREN, they were watching for goodness sake! How dare you show this filth on television!"

Viability of something that contradicts a tradition also challenges that tradition. It makes people start examining more closely what exactly are the sources of certain traditions and are they actually GOOD? The late 19th and 20th Centuries saw people starting to test and challenge the assertions of the "white", the "male", the "Judeo-Christian" powers that be. Then in the 21st Century it picked up momentum and another set of assertions by the "Arab", "male", "Islamic" powers that be, started to be challenged more rigorously as well. I know they prefer times when they were taken at their WORD about what they said is right and wrong. If they said miscegenation was wrong and the black race was inferior and backed it up with scripture they expected to be BELIEVED and their directives on that matter FOLLOWED. If they said the woman was created for the use of the man and is subservient to him and used scripture to back it up, they expected to be BELIEVED and their directives FOLLOWED. They long for their respective golden ages of supremacy, forgetting that it was not a golden age for any other demographic. They prefer times when the people they relegated to second class citizens STAYED IN THEIR PLACE! They prefer those days when the victim-less crimes they concocted to oppress people made law-breakers hide and sneak around in shame and fear of bigotry and violence.

Giving visibility to people who are rebelling against them and challenging their so-called "authority" and flouting how flimsy and false their legalities and assertions are, is like a slap in the face! It is like a salesman telling you there is no other model like his on the market and you see one drive past, proving him a liar. It is causing people to want to broaden their understanding, ask a lot of tough questions, expose contradictions and poke large holes in previously held beliefs! The powers that be have no way of dealing with their loss of dominion if this process of enlightenment were to happen. So, they are resorting to the time old method of tyranny and censorship. If something challenges their supremacy, they call it obscene and offensive or dangerous! It was exactly this kind of tyranny and censorship that gave them their power and authority. Their claim to power cannot survive an age of critical thought, widely available information and free expression. It cannot survive if gay people are living happy, healthy, honest lives, fully-integrated into society and actively making a public contribution or what they call, "Flaunting It!"

Answering Anti-Gay Bible Literalists Part 2- The Old Testament

If you have read Part 1, you are already familiar with how Biblical Literalists think. For the biblical legalist, the 66 books are God’s infallible word. It is the literal story of human history, all the fantastic events are true and the rules and opinions expressed are the final authority on everything that exists, everything we could ever do or conceive of doing. They will even make the argument that the bible can be applied to matters that we know (through entomology, archeological and comparative study of history) that the bronze-aged men who wrote it had no concept of in their time and for which they did not even have the vocabulary to describe; things like homosexuality.

The Very First Thing You Need To Do Is Clearly Define "Homosexual"

Do not get tied up in a game of semantic gymnastics.

For the most part, Anti-Gay Bible Literalists (claiming to be guided by holy-spirit) not only try to attach modern understandings to things written about 4000 years ago without even knowing for sure if it was what the bible writers actually meant. They also keep shifting and widening the definition of homosexuality and homosexual. This makes it easier to use out of context or extremely specific bible quotes to apply to all LGBT people when it clearly does not.

The word “HOMOSEXUAL” and its definition is actually a fairly recent term in human history. It came about during the nineteenth century when humans began exploring the human psyche. In 1886, it was Richard von Krafft-Ebing who first put forward in his book Psychopathia Sexualis the notion that there were people oriented exclusively towards the same sex. He called such people homosexual. Before this radical new proposition, the common belief was that everyone was the same and those who engaged in same-gender sexual behavior did so by choice or being forced into it or having too powerful a libido. Nobody ever considered before that same-sex attraction was an intrinsic trait.

So before you begin to debate, ensure that you properly define “homosexuality” and “homosexual” according to the correct academic and medical connotation which is:

HOMOSEXUALITY and its modern slang GAY- An innate orientation towards the same sex instead of the opposite sex

HOMOSEXUAL- A person with an innate orientation towards the same sex instead of the opposite sex

HOMOSEXUAL (GAY) RELATIONSHIP- A romantic and/or sexually intimate relationship between two, consenting, adult homosexuals.

Make it very clear you are debating about a psycho-sexual condition that is independent of:

Behavior (which includes everything from rape to prostitution to pederasty)

A singular sexual position or sex act (anal sex)

     
 

This may confuse some people who lump everything in the same boat. It should not.

We do not define heterosexuality as every single form of opposite sex interaction (incest, adultery, prostitution and rape) nor do we restrict the definition to a singular sexual act- penile/vaginal intercourse. When you read of a story of rape between a man and a woman in the bible, it is not an indictment against heterosexuality or all mutually consenting heterosexual relationships. So to be intellectually consistent, you cannot take specific cases of same-sex interaction involving rape, prostitution, pagan worship or even anal sex and use it to indict all homosexuals. That would not be intellectually honest.

Sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two different things. 

Someone can be completely virginal or celibate and still have a sexual orientation (an emotional, psychological, biological attraction to a particular gender) or even act contrary to their orientation. For example, Oscar Wilde was heterosexually married but was a homosexual. Some women who are heterosexual act like lesbians for pay. Some men in prison who are heterosexual may use other men for sexual release. Sexual behavior is not always motivated by sexual attraction. Money, peer pressure, desperation, drugs and dominance are just as likely triggers as genuine attraction. You can change your sexual behavior but you cannot change your sexual orientation. It is an involuntary, deeply set trait. Before you even have time to think or make a choice, your brain releases the cocktail of serotonin, oxytocin and dopamine that makes your heart race, palms sweaty, mouth dry, butterflies in the stomach, blood flow to the genitalia in response to a particular person or erotic scenario. The ONLY choice you have is whether to act on your innate nature or suppress it.

But back to the bible.

Homosexuality as it is academically and medically understood today was not part of the ancient Hebrew world-view any more so than awareness of the endocrine system or women contributing 50% of the genetic material towards conception. There is no ancient Hebrew word that translates as- homosexual and if you see the word homosexual anywhere in the Old Testament, you are using a translation that is over-reaching and tampered by a translator adding their own spin and anachronistic assumptions. Is it right to apply modern concepts to ancient writings that was not and could not possibly be referring to the exact same thing? Or is it more accurate to understand things in their proper context- cultural, historical, linguistic?

Impress upon the Anti-Gay Biblical Literalist that the latter is more accurate. The closest thing we have in any Hebrew writings to a reference to people having an inherent, gender/sexual anomaly in their physical and emotional make-up is the word saris. It refers to both male and females who were either born eunuchs or turned into eunuchs. We will learn more about born saris and their role in Jewish culture and the Gospel’s reference to them later on and it will blow your mind!

So now that we have made our definitions perfectly clear, let us state our position which is:

The bible does not condemn homosexuality or committed same sex relationships between consenting adults.

The Anti-Gay Bible Legalist's position is: Yes it does!

So let’s prove our case:

Was The Crime Of Sodom Homosexuality?

Going in biblical order, we will start with Genesis 19 and the story of Lot.

Hospitality was a common decency expected in ancient times when travel involved long days in harsh arid environments. Just like people are expected to cover their nose when they sneeze, one was always expected to welcome strangers, offer water, food and rest.  Even if your accommodation was as humble as a single tent, this human kindness was mandated, far less if you had rich accommodations like the people of Sodom, who had a whole walled city, fertile green land, lots of bread and water.

Honest bible readers and the vast majority of objective biblical scholars, even ones who still maintain that homosexuality is a sin, all agree this account is about inhospitality to strangers, xenophobic gang rape and pure inhumane depravity against one’s fellowman. Even the rest of the bible confirms this. Ezekiel 16: 49, says that the sin of Sodom was greed, pride, fullness of bread and a wicked refusal to help the poor. According to the gospels, when neighboring villages were rude and inhospitable to Jesus and his disciples he compared them to Sodom in Matthew 10:11-15. Even better, in the book of Jude it gets very specific about the crime. In verse 5, it speaks about angels who forsook their natural realm, a reference to the story in Genesis about the “Sons of God” who had interspecies sex (angel with human) with the daughters of men. Then it mentions Sodom as being guilty of the same for going after “strange flesh”. The actual ancient Greek term used is “heteras” which ironically is the root of the word  heterosexual i.e. men are of a different flesh than women. So in this scripture it is clear it is not referring to “the same” flesh as humans but it translates literally as “different form/flesh”, meaning supernatural or not the same as human flesh. What we have here folks is a case of humans (knowingly or unknowingly) wanting to have sex with angels.

Is the story of Sodom about xenophobic, inhospitable, gang rape prompted by selfishness and pride....

Or mutually consenting, loving same sex relationships? Please re-read it carefully and cross reference with other scriptures that mention it. 

If Sodom was an entirely “gay city” it certainly would not have been populous as described in the bible, since any agrarian/military civilization’s success in ancient times depended heavily on population size (which is why the nation of Israel placed so much emphasis on being as numerous as the grains of sand) to be workers in the fields and feed a mighty military. Obviously people in Sodom were having lots of children. I am not saying there were no gay men or lesbians but it is more likely the same ratio today applied back then and LGBT people were in the minority. In addition, Lot’s daughters were engaged to men in the city and Lot even offered his daughters to be raped instead of the men, not a very smart move if he knew the city was full of men who did not find women viable sexual partners.

If your priest/pastor/reverend has supposedly studied the bible, Hebrew and Greek and is perpetuating the falsehood that the words “sodomy” and “sodomite” PROVES that Sodom was a gay city, they are exploiting your ignorance.  Those words did not come from the original Hebrew word used in passages like 2 Kings 23:7 to describe male temple prostitute of the Canaanite Goddess Ashtoreth. The Hebrew word for Sodom is sodem which means to burn. The Hebrew word for a cult-prositute male or female is qadesh. 

And what motivates rape in the first place? A crush? Romantic feelings? No. Rape is all about power and dominance. In ancient times it was a common practice of military men when they wanted to humiliate the men of another conquered tribe. In prisons today, it is still a common practice for the same reasons and the main perpetrators are self-identified heterosexual men. If someone is intent on raping, gender is no issue because the personhood of the victim is not important. The rapist is not being turned on by their face, body, loving reciprocation and enjoyment. He is being turned on by the struggling, helplessness, pain, suffering, crying, screams, blood, humiliation and his total control over the victim.

Whether the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels because they knew they were supernatural and wanted to steal some kind of mystical power or just out of plain hatred and spite to teach the foreigner Lot a lesson: You are a stranger in our city and have no right to bring foreign guests inside our city walls without permission.The context and other biblical references to Sodom clearly shows that it was not destroyed because of people having a homosexual orientation or wanting committed same-sex relationships.

The Holiness Code Of The Mosaic Law (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18.)

Abominable Christmas Ham and American Eagle

The God Hates Fags crowd love holding these references up on their placards, “Thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman it is an abomination.”

Contrary to popular belief, the Hebrew word for abomination does not mean “gross evil” it simply means not kosher or forbidden/foreign. It is also closely linked with idolatry and idol worship.

Seems clear enough when you take it at face value and remember Biblical Illiteracy Factor 2, certain people care more about what a scripture seems to SAY whenever convenient instead of what a scripture MEANS. In order to understand what the scripture means, we have to go back to the original language and the context.

Due to corroboration from Leviticus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18, I think it can be concluded that this passage is indeed about a form of male same-sex intercourse. But that’s it. It is not about homosexuality, the orientation or even all loving same sex relationships. This is further supported by the context and the Hebrew word for “abomination” and its comparative use in other places.  First let us look at the context.

So here were these exiles wandering the wilderness, trying to establish a separate nation and conquer the people inhabiting the land they believed was promised to them by Yahweh. In order to set themselves apart from the Amorites, Canaanites and Hittites, they were given, according to their account, a set of laws from God, 613 in all. These laws covered everything from civil, dietary, hygiene, domestic, economic and of course spiritual practices.

After a blood sacrifice of one's children to Molech or Baal....

The custom of the surrounding Canaanites was to have a pagan sex ritual for fertility with a qadesh or temple prostitute who could be female or a castrated male that served the role of a female.

 Anything that the surrounding nations of non-Hebrews practiced- eating pork, getting tattoos, mixing fabrics, mixing crops were deemed an abomination. There were actually two types of abominations. The word sheqets was used to refer to non-kosher foods, fabrics, farming practices. The word tobeah/toveah was always used in connection to anything related to pagan idolatry. Even the idols themselves were called tobeah/toveah. 

One of the tobeah things to do was to practice any kind of spiritual rite that the pagan tribes practiced in service to their God and Goddess- Baal, Molech, Ashtoreth. Monotheism was a new kettle of fish for the Hebrews, who like most people in their time were aware of many Gods and Goddesses. Throughout the Old Testament, they are always falling back into worshipping other Gods and Goddesses and have to be reminded all the time to only serve Yahweh or risk his wrath upon them. One of the pagan practices common at the time was sacred sexual rites performed by a qadesh/qadesha, a male or female prostitute. In fact, parents would sacrifice their children by making them eunuch temple prostitutes in service to Molech and Ashtoreth.

It amazes me that people pull out just one verse of Leviticus Chapter 18 without reading the WHOLE CHAPTER which clearly is about the aforementioned practices that are part of cultic sex worship. Leviticus 18 begins this way…. “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.”

What were the “ordinances” prevalent in the land of Canaan? The chapter goes on to describe  the various “tobeah” (pagan idolatry) practices such as incest related acts and bestiality. Then in verse 21, right before it the famous verse 22, it speaks about sacrificing children to Molech and only after that it references two men lying together AS WITH A WOMAN.

If it were not for that last part, “AS WITH A WOMAN”, the bible legalist may be able to get a point on his side of the argument. But because of that particular specification, we know this passage is not about homosexuality in general but a particular sex act or rite that is deemed tobeah. Male temple prostitutes or qadesh were often castrated so that they would be “like women”. They were used for fertility rituals after one sacrificed their child to Molech.

This passage is about qadesh and pagan sex rites not about homosexuals or loving same-sex relationships. It also fails to mention lesbians by the way, which would have been a good time to do so, if indeed the purpose of the law was to ban homosexuality in general. Did the Israelites not know about lesbians? Or was it, like masturbation or sexual play between unmarried lovers (Song of Solomon) not even an important enough issue to legislate?

Cherry Picking The Old Testament To Condemn What You Don’t Like

I said it before and I will say it again, no bible thumper follows all of Leviticus and so they render themselves-hypocrites when held up to closer scrutiny.

Some like to claim that the Mosaic Law was divided into Ceremonial Law and a Moral Law and the moral law like the ten commandments and includes passages used to condemn at least some form of same-sex intercourse between men, still applies. Well, according to Jewish scholars of their OWN writings, no such distinction exists. The 613 Laws are part of one Mosaic Legal Code. In addition, they point to the fact that the law was for “The Children Of Israel” not for you and me. This doctrine is purely a Christian construct on someone else’s religion.

Among the many “abominations”, here are some things also punishable by death in Leviticus:

      Having sex with a menstruating woman

      A child cursing their parent

      Working on the Sabbath

If you are going to use Leviticus to condemn LGBT people, you also condemn yourself as a hypocrite if you too do not follow all 613 laws.

In addition, to claim that “biblical marriage” is the same as the post-Victorian traditional concept of marriage is well, not entirely accurate. According to the bible marriage is everything from arranged marriages, cousins marrying, brothers marrying sisters (Abraham and Sarah), brother in laws marrying their widowed sister in laws; the use of concubines to slave girls; forcing rape victims and conquered women to marry the men who claimed them against their full will, just see Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8, Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8, Exodus 21:2-4 and Deut. 22:28-29. There have been all kinds of marital arrangements in the bible, some of which were claimed to be sanctioned by Yahweh. To pick one that most fits the modern definition you would like to defend and declare it THE BIBLICAL STANDARD is also not being entirely honest.

Do we really apply biblical standards today?

Born Eunuchs-Saris A Case For Gender Diversity In Nature

Anti-gay biblical literalists need to maintain that God does not create anything except obviously masculine, heterosexual men and obviously feminine heterosexual women. They say it is a perverted CHOICE that makes people behave in any way atypical to traditional gender roles and sexuality. However, there is proof that is not what the ancient Hebrews believed.

According to the Mosaic Holiness Code (see Deuteronomy 23:1-2.) no one who had their testicles removed could enter the temple or partake of the holy offering temurah, neither could their wives. These castrated men were called saris. However, in Jeremiah 34:15-19, it mentions eunuchs who were serving in the temple. How come?

Well, if we go to the Talmud, we learn about a group of eunuchs who were classified as “born eunuchs”. They did not have any physical deformity of the genitalia and so could enjoy full temple inclusion and partake of the temurah. So what it was that made them be described as eunuchs?

It was the fact they were effeminate for men or overly masculine for women. I quote from the Talmud:

“Who is a congenital saris [a born eunuch]? 13 Any person who is twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. 14 And even if he produced them afterwards he is deemed to be a saris [born eunuch] in all respects. He whose voice is abnormal so that one cannot distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman.
Any woman who is twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. And even if she produces them afterwards she is deemed to be a woman incapable of procreation in all respects. She has no breasts and suffers pain during copulation. One whose voice is deep so that one cannot distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman.”

In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have mentioned these saris in Matthew 19, when he refers to “born eunuchs” and he certainly was not condemning them.

What is a biblical scholar supposed to conclude from these passages? Well, obviously that the Hebrews, though primitive had already observed that sexual anomalies existed among their people and saw they were congenital. They defined physical and temperamental traits the best way they knew how, for they had no other benchmarks. Today we know after over 100 years of psychological study that human sexuality and gender is naturally diverse. Every year, millions of children are born who are intersex or have chromosomal, hormonal, psychological variances as it relates to gender and sexuality.

The ancient Hebrews, even if they did not know about genetics, bacteria and the solar system, were at least smart enough to know these characteristics were inbred, not a choice and not a reason to ill-treat a person.

Were David And Jonathan Genuinely In Love With Each Other?

“the soul (nephesh) of Jonathan was (qashar) knit with the (nephesh) soul of David, and Jonathan loved (ahab) him as his own (nephesh) soul.”

The Hebrews had many words for “love”. They made clear distinctions between brotherly/familial love, Divine spiritual love and romantic love. When speaking about love between husband and wife and lovers, the Hebrews used the word ahab. The word ahab is used to describe the love between Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29:20 and the love of the Shulamite girl for her shepherd boy in the Song of Solomon 3:1-4. 

So it is very curious that when the story of Jonathan and David unfolds, it is not the term for brotherly love or Divine love but ahab love between them in 1 Samuel 18:1-4. More importantly, there is the use of the Hebrew words quashar (knit) and nephesh (soul- the self, life, desire, passion), which when used together in the bible are almost always in reference to marriage vows or soul-mates, who become “one-flesh”.

So when the passage in Samuel says:  “the soul (nephesh) of Jonathan was (qashar) knit with the (nephesh) soul of David, and Jonathan loved (ahab) him as his own (nephesh) soul.” We cannot help but wonder at the nature of this love. If this was an opposite sex pair, the natural assumption would be this was a romantic relationship and one of the greatest love stories ever. It is only because the story refers to two men that the nature of the love is relegated to “brotherly love”

Other indicators that make a clear distinction are:

The fact that although David eventually marries Jonathan’s sister Michal, the bible is very careful to show that David does not love her and it was a marriage for political alliances. When he marries the princess Michal, Saul calls him, “son in law in the two”, so who is the other child? Jonathan perhaps?

The reaction of Jonathan and David when they realize they can no longer see one another. According to the account in Samuel, they embraced and wept repeatedly, only parting after swearing an eternal covenant to one another. It would be a promise David kept years later even through it was extremely politically inconvenient to him.

David’s lament for Jonathan when he was slain in battle: “I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;

Greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
(2 Samuel 1: 26-27)

Anti-Gay Biblical Literalists love to reduce the relationships of gays and lesbians down to a singular sex act to avoid the fact...

There is genuine love, commitment, self-sacrifice and intimacy that can outlast life's challenges including persecution and prejudice.

One of the wide circles Anti-Gay Biblical Literalists make around the subject of homosexuality is the aspect of LOVE. They try to reduce the relationship between gays and lesbians to sex, lust and childhood dysfunction as a means to ignore the fact that gays and lesbians feel the same kind of love for their partner as straight couples do for theirs. The same willingness to compromise, self-sacrifice and set aside the individual ego for authentic soul union with another is what makes it possible for gay couples to last through sickness, health, richer, poorer, better and worse. Sex alone does not do this.

So in conclusion of your Old Testament argument:

• The word “homosexual” and the way we understand it today is not covered in the Old Testament
• The story of Sodom is about inhospitality and inhumanity not homosexuality
• The Mosaic Law deals with specific same sex acts that were related to tobeah/toveah activities, namely idolatrous sex rites involving qadesh
• The Mosaic Law cannot be cherry picked without indicting the cherry-picker who does not follow the entire legislation in respect to diet, clothing, agricultural practices and keeping the Sabbath.  

We will deal with the New Testament in the next installment.

For more information please visit: http://www.gaychristian101.com, http://www.gaychristian.net the film, “For The Bible Tells Me So” and check out this fabulous video series starting with this one:

Answering Anti-Gay Biblical Literalists- Part One- Understanding Their Side

They look (with a mixture of revulsion and pity) at the quiet, creative, effeminate teenager or the out of the closet news anchor or you and your life partner minding your own business. Although you did not ask for their opinion or even care to hear it, they feel it necessary to declare, “Homosexuality is a sin! The BIBLE SAYS SO!”

Of course, they are entitled to their opinion.

Free belief and free speech are fundamental rights. But so too is everyone’s right to a private family life, equality under the law and freedom to love, live, be productive and happy, at least in most civilized, western democracies.

The problem is that many anti-gay biblical literalists claim that you, as an LGBT person do not deserve to enjoy those aforementioned human rights, at least not while living as your sexuality dictates. Since they cannot make a valid case scientifically, sociologically, civilly and legally that the equally valid and happy existence of LGBT people will rob anyone else of their fundamental rights or ruin the planet, they are left with one last resort. You are not only making them uncomfortable, especially if they have to explain society’s acceptance of you to their children, you are making God very pissed off!

In fact, they claim that every time you feel attraction, get a crush, fall in love or make love, God gets madder and madder with you.  Some will even go as far as to say that living your life honestly is the gravest sin of sins. How do they intend to prove this is actually true? By using the bible, which they claim is God’s infallible word and the final authority on everything that exists, everything we could ever do or conceive of doing, even things the bronze-aged men who wrote it had no concept of in their time. And so, armed with this assertion and the 66 books, they go campaigning for punitive action against LGBT people at worst or at best quoting biblical verses out of good intentions with the hope it will cause you to feel just as they do.

How do you deal with such people? How do you answer them? Why bother answering them at all?

Well the bible-thumpers who are impassioned, virulent, unstable and clearly beyond reasoning I would indeed recommend ignoring them and if their actions go beyond free expression and descend into harassment, they should be met with zero tolerance.

But many who express their biblical objections to LGBT people are not foaming at the mouth or picketing the funerals of soilders. They condemn gays and lesbians with smiling civility and purport to be reasonable people with no hate in their heart. Lately such people are also met with zero tolerance and many gay activists and their supporters would argue, rightfully so especially when these “love the sinner hate the sin” types inconsiderately and some would say irresponsibly express their courteous condemnations at inappropriate times for example in public response to gay teen suicide and bullying.

After the spate of gay suicides and bullying of gay teens, certain spokespeople took the opportunity to inappropriately blame the victims for being homosexual. The complete lack of empathy on their part was even more gut-curdling than the foaming at the mouth Gods Hates Fags people because it was done often with a big smile.

Some dismiss anti-gay bible thumpers because they find their presumption and lack of perspective ludicrous. After all, isn’t the Old Testament just another set of myths, skewed history, illogical and chronologically flawed writings by bronze aged, tribesmen who did not even know that the earth revolved around the sun and microorganisms caused diseases? Was not the New Testament compiled by a corrupt, politically motivated Roman Catholic Church Empire in an attempt to forge a new imperial religion that could render Judaism defunct and compete with the Sun-worship and incarnating blood sacrificing deities of the pagans they wished to conquer? Obviously the people who believe the bible is the infallible, direct word of God must be just a little…well, nuts. Right?

Although this atheistic response is au current in most developed first world nations, here in the Caribbean, people still place a great deal of authority on holy texts, particularly the bible. They will not be dismissed so easily with a Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens quote. This approach is also unhelpful in elevating and enlightening the continued dialogue on the subject. Nothing ever gets resolved. Instead, both sides simply dig in deeper with greater resentment and over-defensiveness.

Shutting down debate by degrading the bible accomplishes nothing.

In a previous essay on Bullying, I mentioned that a fear of delving into contentious debate when someone says, “Well God’s word says…” and simply going the route of censorship will degrade our society into a bunch of sissies who cannot deal with differences of opinion nor critically weigh two opposing views without feeling threatened and persecuted.

I have taken on bible thumpers in person, on live radio, in letters to the editor of newspapers, in online chat rooms and discussion boards and I have never once had to resort to threats, ad hominem or other fallacious arguments. Perhaps the reason why I am able to do this is because I feel no resentment towards the bible or bible believers.  It may not seem that way to them though. Many Christians who chance upon my blog get bent out of shape. But I am not defaming the individual believer. If any religion claims to have an absolute monopoly on truth and God’s favor, you cannot blame one for questioning and criticizing the existence of atrocious, ignorant or powerless manifestations within that religion.

I was made to read the bible over and over while growing up in a staunch evangelical household and I have found, despite all the flaws and atrocities great universal truths in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. So too have a lot of people, spiritual and not. You do not have to be a legalistic fundamentalist Christian in order to appreciate the bible. In fact, I have found that being a legalistic, fundamentalist Christian may actually hinder a deeper appreciation of the bible because you are made to treat it with kid gloves and operate on many false assumptions which the theologically trained clergy hesitate to dissuade you, even if they know you are not seeing things for what they really are.

I still meet Christians today who truly believe that the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the literal authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As an A student of Literature all the way up to Cambridge A Levels, this treatment of the scriptures bugged me no end. You see, on the one hand, I was being taught at school that in order to truly understand and appreciate any written work, you had to take the gloves off and tear into it. 

Only with the bible are we asked to abandon all reason and treat it like a mystical object.

In order to understand Shakespeare and Chaucer, I first had to glean an appreciation of old English and the idiomatic meanings of words. I had to understand the Middle Ages, the society, the culture and commonly held beliefs subjective to the time. At no time did my teacher give a pre-arranged doctrine about Hamlet or A Knight’s Tale and then taught me how to apologetically defend it with selective quotes. Instead, I was made to discover the writing on its own merit. This was a far cry from how the bible was being taught during bible study. It was not “study” in the purest sense of the word, but indoctrination and regurgitation which made me, like most Christians, woefully biblically illiterate.

I am telling you this because if you choose to reason with a bible quoting condemner of homosexuality, instead of dismissing them or censoring them, you must first understand what it means to be biblically illiterate. In fact there are Four Biblical Illiteracy Factors.

Bible Illiteracy Factor 1

A person who is biblically illiterate pays no heed to the type of translation they use or the process by which it now sits in their hand. As far as they are concerned, it is the Living Word made paper…and leather and ink. With this book, they can speak for God himself in plain English. In fact, they act as if that was the original language of the writers. They can tell others right now of what God thinks RIGHT NOW about anything, anyone, any situation. For this book is the very mind of God. And it only costs around $30 (unless you get a free copy)and weighs less than a pound. They truly believe that the Almighty Being who created the entire Universe can be predicted, quoted and represented by just opening this book.

Even if the bible were infallible what makes people so presumptuously certain that their understanding of it is also infallible? Not even the most accomplished student of literature ever claims to know exactly the mind of the human author whose work they spend a lifetime examining, far less a tome written by a Higher Intelligence.

Certain Christians use the bible in order to present themselves as the spokespeople for God who have intimate knowledge of God's mind, opinions, future plans on everything and everyone.

Most Christians who approach the bible in this way have no idea that this fetish-like, magic 8 ball relationship with the scriptures is actually a very recent thing in Christian history. In fact, you can bet that if someone views the bible this way, they also are entirely ignorant about the history of the Christian faith.

Biblical Illiteracy Factor 2

A person who is biblically illiterate is not very concerned with what bible verses ACTUALLY MEAN. They are only concerned about what bible verses SAY when they need certain things SAID in order to confirm the particular doctrine or social tradition they were taught alongside the bible.

I will use the example of the social tradition of corporal punishment. In order to defend it, many will quote verses like: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” Proverbs 13:24 or “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.” Proverbs 22:15.

At first glance certain verses in the bible do seem to SAY that beating your child with a rod is a good thing. But is that really what these verses MEAN?

Dig just a little deeper into the Hebrew language, culture, poetic metaphors common at the time and you will discover that the word for rod or staff is shebet. It is actually a crooked staff used by shepherds to manage their flock. Now, shepherds do not beat the sheep with the rod but use the crooked staff to hook a wayward sheep by the neck and guide it back where it belonged. As a result of this cultural practice, the word shebet was also commonly used as a metaphor for wisdom or authority.  When in Exodus, it says that Moses was told by God that “with this staff you will lead the people out of Egypt,” it does not mean the literal shebet but the figurative shebet- with this wisdom and authority you will lead the people out of Egypt.

 Proverbs is a book filled with metaphors and that is why its writer can say, “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.” Proverbs 23:13. If indeed the bible is true, this scripture can only makes sense if the rod is a symbolic one, after all every year, thousands of children die from being beaten with “rods of correction”.

Human life is lost when people do not take the time to understand a book they claim to be God’s word.

Unfortunately, for the biblically illiterate, understanding what the bible MEANS, is too tedious a process. You have to get hold of a Hebrew and Greek concordance, read up biblical scholars, Jewish scholars, anthropology and archeology that reveal the context of the writing, the culture of the people, cross-reference with similar writings for clarification. Too much work for the intellectually lazy! Others who are not lazy are simply not equipped to do the research or have been told they don’t have to go through all that trouble. Which brings us to the next factor of biblical illiteracy you must understand before you engage in debate.

Biblical Illiteracy Factor 3

The biblical illiterate believe that they will be mystically bestowed accurate understanding. Even with just a second grade education they CAN BE A BIBLE EXPERT.

If it requires special spiritual powers to understand the bible and two equally sincere people claiming to have received those powers from God after sincerely praying yet have come away with two entirely different understandings of the same verse, which one do you believe? 

What is amazing is that so many never wonder how come the holy spirit always seems to guide them exactly where their pastor wants them to be. When someone tells you, “I was guided by holy spirit to understand this scripture, so you must believe me!” or “If you were guided by holy spirit, you will understand things exactly the same way I am trying to show you,” what they are actually saying is that you must put your faith in them without asking them the obvious question: “How do you know it was actually the holy spirit guiding you or the pastor/priest/reverend that taught you? How do you prove it could not possibly be any other emotion, mental state or trigger? What faculties do you use to distinguish the difference?”

The irony is, many bible believers will tell you how unreliable things like logic and science are but what they offer as a superior methodology to enlightenment is actually entirely subjective. Call me an arrogant, elitist intellectual all you like for wanting things to be a little more definitive and objective when it will be used to dictate how others live their lives and what human rights they enjoy.

 

We trust evidence over speculation in almost every aspect of our daily life including a court of law. We need to have things proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to justify any action we take that will rob someone of their freedom or life or else it does not sit well on our conscience

 

You and I were given the ability to reason, discover solid laws and depend on them enough to explore space and perform open heart surgery. Why would an Almighty Being feel threatened by our exercise of the faculties it gave us? Yes, knowledge is power but no amount of empowerment we achieve could ever intimidate a truly Almighty Being that is also supposed to be benevolent. The human custodians of religion on the other hand, well, that is another story. The empowerment of their fellowmen is often the last thing on their agendas and they inculcate their followers in being forever dependent and disempowered.

 

Does a human grandfather feel threatened when his grandchild makes her first steps or does he instead feel proud and happy?

I hope you fully understand the factors at play in many of those who come at you with their biblical justifications for why LGBT people should be treated as second class citizens. Once you do, you are ready to learn how to reply to them. Knowing one’s opponent in any battle and that includes philosophical debate is very important and that is why the best rebuttals to this argument come from those who actually KNOW THEIR BIBLE and sadly most do not, on both sides of the issue.

Even among those who do know and can stand up to anti-gay biblical literalists with solid bible-based rebuttals, a kind of weariness sets in after a while when you have to make the same argument over and over again. But do not stop! Your counteraction is very important. Why?

Well, it is important for two reasons. I mentioned one earlier. Nobody’s holy text should be used as justification for robbing another human being of their fundamental human right to a private family life, equality under the law and freedom to love, live, be productive and happy if that person in no way threatens the fundamental human rights of anyone else.

The second reason is even more important and I warn you, I am about to use some fighting words. Here it goes:

Anti-gay biblical literalists are hypocrites.

 

They may not be consciously aware that they are acting like Pharisees but they are. You may have noticed that I said earlier that there are Four Biblical Illiteracy Factors but so far I only mentioned three. I saved the fourth for last.

Biblical Illiteracy Factor 4

All biblical illiterate people inadvertently find themselves cherry-picking, back-tracking , falling into inconsistencies and failing to carry the same burdens they try to load upon the shoulders of others.

For example, they have no problem cherry-picking Leviticus 18:20 out of the 613 Mosaic Laws in order to condemn sexually active (and even celibate, virginal) homosexual men and teens. They will even use it to get the Government to take punitive action against adult, consensual, relationships, even committed ones lasting many years. But ask these same people why they do not also follow the other 612 laws. How come they do not ask the Government to enact the death penalty against people who work on the Sabbath or quarantine menstruating women or declare themselves unclean after a wet dream or stone children who throw an expletive filled temper tantrum? Why do they eat shrimp and tuck into the Christmas ham with gusto every year?

This is the main reason why we must engage and answer anti-gay literalists. They are being dishonest not only with themselves but all of society. The same honesty that made you live your life truthfully despite persecution and rejection is what should drive you to set the hypocrite…straight.

The same unflappable need to be honest that made you come out of the closet even if it meant waiting generations before the rest of society learned to be tolerant, should make you fight hypocristy when you find it.

 

Next installment, we will show how the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, namely: Genesis 19 (The Story Of Sodom), The Mosaic Law and Kings are wrongly utilized in order to condemn LGBT people today. In the installment after that, we will explore the New Testament.

Stay tuned!