Gays, Hate, Blacks, and the Bible

"... Colin Powell... told Ted Koppel in 1993 that the real issue with gays in the military was that 'we have to shower together." Uh-huh. Mr. Koppel gave General Powell a pass by not asking the obvious question: 'So which is it, General: Are you afraid of them or are you afraid of yourself?" - Jim Callaghan, New York Observer, November 30, 2003

In striking down the ban on gay marriage, the California Supreme Court cited Loving vs. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that similarly struck down state bans on interracial marriage, drawing direct parallels between racial prejudice and prejudice against gays.

In the past, black Republicans and bigoted preachers have been trotted out to quash any such comparison.

In 1993, Colin Powell said, "skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

He ignores the fact that skin color has always been attached to behaviors. Dark skin connoted everything from licentiousness and violence, from idleness to idiocy. It still does. That's what stereotypes are.

In addition, gayness, per se, is no more directly behavioral than skin color. Set a gay and straight individual to the task of reading and you could not tell the difference. Even religions don't mind celibate gays ("hate the sin, love the sinner"), so the argument cannot be about "gayness," per se. Nor is the issue behavior. The issue is one single behavior: sexual. "Behavior" is code for "The Act." Straight people do it, too, but our way is wrong. Why? "Because the Bible says so." That's the rationale for vociferous opposition to gay rights. No less authority than The Book condemns us. No less than God disapproves.

For centuries, Christian religions widely adhered to the Curse of Ham theory, which cited the Book of Genesis as proof that blacks were the result of a curse from God. Per the racists, God disapproved of us. No less authority than The Book condemned us. No less than God disapproved. The theory wasn't officially abandoned until the mid-twentieth century.

For centuries, Christian religions have held that the Bible condemns homosexuality. However, that evidence is just as specious as the Curse of Ham biblical interpretation that justified racism and slavery.

In his 1981 book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality," Yale University history professor John Boswell proved that "it is quite clear that nothing in the Bible would have categorically precluded homosexual relations among early Christians. In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word 'homosexual' does not occur in the Bible: no extant text or manuscript, Hebrew Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic, contains such a word."

Boswell revisited original biblical texts in their original languages. He showed that the two appearances of the word "sodomite" in the King James translation of the Old Testament did not necessarily imply homosexual and are, in fact, "simply mistranslations of a Hebrew word for temple prostitute."

He looks at Leviticus, "The only place in the Old Testament where homosexual acts per se are mentioned..."

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

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. [20:13]

He explains that, "the Hebrew word 'toevah', here translated as 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters."

He notes similar mistranslations in the writings of Paul, in which a common Greek word translated to mean everything from "loose," "delicate," "gentle" and "cowardly" is twisted in translation to mean "homosexual." Another instance has a word meaning "male prostitute" until well into the fourth century, transformed to "homosexual" some time thereafter.

These mistranslations don't change the fact that Paul was a raging homophobe. But as a mortal, living, breathing, necessarily flawed individual, there is no reason to take his hatred of gays as any more definitive than his acceptance of slavery.

Boswell did an extraordinary service. Through close reading of original biblical texts and concurrent writings, he proves that the violent prohibitions against gay sex were biblical add-ons, introduced in translation as tolerance for gays waned between the Christian Era and the end of the Middle Ages. He simultaneously puts the lie to the principal source of hatred against us--that God agrees. On close examination, it seems he agrees only in relatively recent translation.

"The Old Testament strictures against same-sex behavior," writes Boswell, "would have seemed to most Roman citizens as arbitrary as the prohibition of cutting the beard, and they would have no reason to assume that it should receive any more attention to the latter."

Blacks and gays have both had negative character traits attributed to them by dint of their genetic heritage. Both groups have endured centuries of hatred based on perversions of original biblical texts.

Far from an "invalid" argument, the comparison between the prejudice against gays and against blacks is extremely apt. In this day and age, both should be equally embarrassing, But as this political season and the inevitable battles born of the California Supreme Court ruling prove, that's not the case for either.

Comments

[Bobrobert]

Roflmao.

Bible bashing time.

Same old same old.

The bible teaches to love your neighbor.

The bible teaches to hate sin.

The bible does not teach to hate your neighbor who sins.

Misquote all you like - it doesn't change what Jesus taught.

Have a nice day folks.

[kcinci]

lemme guess, if King James was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you.

Just what did Jesus say about homosexuality in the bible? Assuming the bible is the only quoted reference we have of his words.

[research]

The Bible includes Jesus' words of love in the Gospels.

The Bible also includes the old testament and revelation which are full of hate speech.

Religions need to grow up.

Create new editions of the Bible, the Koran and the Tora without the hate speech.

[Mack20]

Comparing racial discrimination with gay and lesbian issues is a bit of a stretch. Apples and oranges, in my opinion. Lately it seems gays and lesbians are constantly pushing their lifestyle on everyone. Twenty-some years ago when I was in college, a good 30% of my fraternity members were gay. Believe me, if I could have joined a woman’s organization at 19 without being noticed and enjoyed the benefits, I would have. But normal societal behavior prevented it. So, how about a gay Boy Scout leader? Or a lesbian soccer coach for 10-12 year old girls? No hidden agenda, I’m sure!

[ladyfractal]

Which "lifestyle" is that? I, a lesbian in the Pacific Northwest who is an academic, has far more in common with other academics than I do with a lesbian in Kansas City who tends bar or slings hash. So what 'lifestyle' is it you're speaking of that gays and lesbians live? Also, how are we pushing ourselves on you? You mean by demanding things like the ability to cover our partner on our health care? Is that the kind of pushing? Or do you mean pushing for laws that protect us from being fired BECAUSE we are gay?

Actually, no hidden agenda to be *certain*. Homosexual does not equal pedophile. In fact, since you're going to take this tactic (and don't try backing off now, it's FAR too late for that); THE people we should keep away from kids lest they be harmed are heterosexual men. Statistically, the most dangerous people in the country are heterosexual men. I'll say this as a lesbian who volunteers to be a role model for young women interested in math, engineering or science there's no hidden agenda it's memory of BEING a young woman interested in science and there being precious few role models around. So when I grew up, I decided that I would BE the role model I wanted to HAVE. Now, you might have trouble imagining doing something for someone else for no other reason than it needs to be done. Perhaps, that's part of that lesbian 'lifestyle'.

Cheers
LF

[NYSF]

I hate it when homosexuals try to compare their plight to that of African Americans. It is not, and will never be the same thing!!!! Please stop it! I respect that it must be hard as hell to be gay in America, i will not allow you to compare and mend our struggles. They are not the same! Our culture, heritage, family structure, self esteem, and sense of hope were DESTROYED! There is no hiding being black. All gay people dont act "gay" and therefore dont deal with the level of bullshi+ that is unavoidable in my world. I respect you for standing up for your lifestyle, but being black is not a lifestyle.

[Mack20]

It's harder to be gay in a muslim society. In fact, won't you lose your life?

[astein1]

You realize that the author of this article is a gay BLACK man, don't you?

[ladyfractal]

NYSF:

THIS black woman, who is also a lesbian, disagrees with you. When you say 'lifestyle', what do you mean? What is a 'gay lifestyle'. My 'lifestyle' is of an urban academic. That FAR more informs my life choices than being a lesbian. As far as the level of bull that we BOTH put up with, I'll trade you. You see, no one is EVER going to ban you from seeing your beloved in the hospital because you are not family just because you're black (regardless of the color of the skin of the other person). You are NOT going to have to pay extra in order to cover your spouse on your health care. The list goes on and on.

Yes, our culture was destroyed, there is a discontinuity between us and West Africans where our genes come from but our heritage is still with us and our culture is the *same* culture as the rest of Western civilization. Our families were destroyed but that was a century and a half ago. We are NOT, in point of fact, suffering from *that* discontinuity any longer. My parents, who were a couple of generations closer to slavery than either of us is, had no problems with self-esteem that accomplishment couldn't erase. If you have problems with self-esteem because of slavery, *accomplish* something, *be somebody*. But to pretend, as you do, that discrimination isn't discrimination is just folly.

Cheers
LF

[valkyrie607]

Excellent post!

Now would someone please tell the DL brothers?

[cylindar]

Hmmm your argument is a bit specious. There are problems with certain passages as to there exact, precise meaning, but that does not prove your argument. I see everybody trying to twist the balloon and distort it into the image of their own god or goddess with mild amusement. The other problem you seem to have is to not understand that men and women and boys and girls are not allowed to shower together for a very good reason. Apparently you do not understand that reason and thus can't understand why it's not a good idea for a gay guy to get in the shower with heterosexual men. Now if society were to break its prohibition in certain circumstances from prohibiting men from showering with women I think then, it would also be fitting for gay guys to join other guys in the shower or lesbian women to join other women in the shower. What bothers me is that the gays and lesbians want a cheap no cost peep and tell show at other peoples expense. I don't think so. General rules for such behavior have to change across the board first for all orientations. Basically you need to understand that neither women or men want to be leered at in such situations. There are other places you can go for that sort of thing. Enjoy!!

[valkyrie607]

So basically you don't like the idea of someone leering at you. Fair enough.

What does that have to do with this article though?

Answer: Nothing.

Go home and work out your insecurities on your own time.

[rnb]

What an amazing new take on condemning homosexuals. The real problem is just that they look at you in the shower! Of course this totally ignores the fact that there's not a single law respecting sexual orientation based segregation in public restrooms, and thus even the law doesn't currently make such a distinction. The fact is, the problem with someone checking you out in the shower isn't that the person doing it is homosexual, it's that such an act is considered inappropriate all by itself.

[WaynesWhirled]

That is ridiculous! I served in the army for years, and believe me, taking showers with straight guys was the least of my problems. And if you have ever been to a locker room in a gym, you know full well that it's the straight guys, not gays, that "check out" all the other guys packages. Straight guys are always peeking at eachother (I guess as a way to contrast and compare). Gay guys on the other hand, know full well that striaight guys are sexually prudish, and we are smart enough not to stare. (and despite what you straight guys think, most gay guys would rather have sex with other gay men. Straight guys are pretty boring in bed, you are a one trick poney. And really not worth getting too excited about, plus gay guys usually have hotter bods than straight dudes).

[research]

Christians should be reading the Gospels, NOT the old testament!.

Shall we stone those who wear blends of fabrics?

Or should those who are without sin (no one) cast the first stone?

[Bertha40869]

I won't sit here and say that I really understand gay/lesbian lifestyles, but, even with my Christian background, I wouldn't dare treat anyone who is gay or lesbian differently. True Christians love all people, regardless of what our Word defines as sinful. I believe, as all Christians SHOULD, that God judges all, that one sin is no greater than the other, and that in the end, the mysteries that we try to put our own spin on rather than just accept them as mysteries, will all be explained.

Jesus wasn't afraid of anyone, and, with Christ as my example, I don't believe that we mere mortals should be, either.

[okayigive]

I agree with you about being a true Christian and all sin are treated equally in God's eyes. The problem is that many who say they are Christians are far from it. They seemingly adhere to the title as if it's something fashionable to do. Many hold on to their false interpretation of the bible to justify their own behaviors and prejudices. Many fail to see the type of people Christ was drawn to-prostitute, thieves, tax collectors, murderers, those that prosecuted, women, children, men, faithful and unfaithful, rich, poor, etc. He would point out their sins, but also would forgive and love them as a child of God. They adhere to a fear,dislike, and intolerence of those who are different in thought, skin color, behavior, and hold a different religious system. Many fail to see or understand that they represent God on earth and how they behave will either draw others to the fold or away.If you behave and speak unkindly towards another, then what make you any different from those who don't believe. The word of God doesn't tell us to love only certain groups of people. God tells us to love even our enemies and pray for them.

Many have a definition of sin that is limited with different degrees, rather than all encompassing Example: it's okay to tell a "white lie" instead of a blatant lie, or it's okay to take supplies from work , but not to rob someone. Sin is sin.

[ladyfractal]

Bertha:

The problem is not how YOU might treat us but what laws YOU might vote for. There are people who want to remove ALL job protections from gays and lesbians. What that means is that there are people, who in the name of your dear and fluffy lord, want to make it *legal* to fire someone because they are gay or they perceive someone as being gay. But wait, it gets better than that. They want to make it legal for the manager of an apartment complex to evict you *because* you are gay. That's right. So how YOU might treat ME is irrelevant to me. But whether or not YOU would vote for laws that negatively affect ME is of *great* relevance to me. I don't believe in your god so what you believe your god thinks is 'sin' is irrelevant. Again, the only thing that matters is that you do not support or advocate laws that negatively affect gays or lesbians and then hide behind the idea that it's in the bible. The problem is that altogether too many Christians believe that their *religious beliefs* require them to vote in particular ways that affect our *secular laws*.

Cheers
LF