Skip to main content

View Diary: Bowers v. Hardwick was decided 25 years ago today (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  For the scoop on the /real/ sin of Sodom: (6+ / 0-)
    Ezekiel 16.49-50

    This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

    If the fundamentalists and corporatists gave up the sin of Sodom this country would be quite different!

    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:38:16 PM PDT

    •  If you ask me (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Clarknt67, craigkg, kyril

      the entirety of the interpretation of the Bible's stance on homosexuality is incorrect. I have read a lot of scholars who have said the Leviticus prohibition against it was designed to stop men from having sex with other men for fun when they were married to women. (It involved ceremonies of some sort where dudes would get together for that, or something.)

      And there are even OTHER theories.

      So the whole idea that the Bible is against gay people and gay relationships is far from concrete.

      "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans." - President Obama, 2/28/08

      by indiemcemopants on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:47:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree entirely. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indiemcemopants, Clarknt67, kyril

        We did a bible study on just that (what if anything does the bible say about homosexuality) on Sunday and I plan to do a diary sharing those materials (now that Google Sites are behaving again). Marriage equality is the best reading, as far as I can see. It was part of a series looking at how tradition changes.

        The Leviticus passages were most likely referring to male temple prostitutes (though there is another reading that is plausible, that two guys shouldn't do it in a woman's bed because women have cooties or are cool or something).

        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:10:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A variety of interpretations exists (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indiemcemopants, Wee Mama, kyril

        One is of course the "standard" interpretation that men don't get to have sex with other men.

        The second interpretation is that STRAIGHT men don't get to have sex with other men since it is contrary to their nature. Which likewise means that for a gay man to be obliged to have sex with a woman would be just as much of an abomination (I suppose that means that if one is bisexual, one is entirely off the hook).

        The third interpretation is that the prohibition contained in Leviticus applies to sexual contact between men and  temple prostitutes (boys or men or perhaps, it isn't clear) with whom ritualized sexual contact was part of the rite of some competing religions.

        Still another interpretation of Leviticus is that it applies strictly to actual intercourse between two men, leaving other forms of sexual expression as acceptable.

        And finally, there is the idea that since the injunction references "LYING with a man as one LIES with a woman" it is okay to have sex with another man as long as you're both standing up. (No, I'm not kidding.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site