Anti-Gay Bigotry: Don't Blame It on the Bible

[SpartanDem]

Most Americans who oppose gay rights and same-sex marriage justify their opposition by turning to the Bible. But does the Bible really oppose homosexuality? You'd be surprised.

At the end of March, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which denies gay Americans the right to legally marry. Major polls show most Americans in support of marriage equality. Still a vocal and well-heeled right-wing evangelical opposition presents a formidable obstacle. Why? Because of a long-held belief that homosexuality is among the greatest of biblical sins.

But does the Bible really condemn homosexuality? Ironically it never answers that question conclusively. In fact, the biblical basis for the demonization of homosexuality is very thin and, ultimately, not at all decisive. Oddly enough, the notions of homosexuality that are so deeply rooted in American culture and law are based upon a surprisingly small number of biblical passages. If progressives are to successfully address the supposed divinely sanctioned circumscription of gay Americans' constitutional rights, it is crucial that they understand the biblical arguments that gay rights opponents use to justify their resistance. What follows is a brief primer on what progressives need to know about what the Bible says -- and does not say -- about homosexuality.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/obery-m-hendricks-jr-phd/dont-blame-it-on-the-bible_b_2884094.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

[trotsky]

1. I'm having a hard time seeing how this helps anything.

It's just another "You're not interpreting the bible correctly, but *I* am!" argument-by-assertion.

Seriously, if we could get Fred Phelps to read this, does anyone think it would change his mind? He's absolutely convinced he's read the bible correctly, just like this guy.

The best thing we can do is dispel the notion that the bible is any kind of final word when it comes to morality or ethics. Neutralize its power. Secular arguments for equal rights and gay marriage are plenty strong enough to stand on their own.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. The Bible quite explicitly prescribes death for male homosexuality...

... I fail to see how the intent of the law absolves it of its wording.

It sounds to me the author really wants the Bible to be a good book, so much that he's willing to perform mental acrobatics to justify its more barbaric passages.

But, as Trotsky already noted, this discussion is ultimately counterproductive. Our law is secular law, and what the Bible does or does not say is irrelevant to the legislative process. Our position shouldn't be "it doesn't say that MY Bible", but that the Bible is not, and should not be, the basis for civil law.

[SpartanDem]

3. The Bible says a lot of things

Ok story time I was born and raised in Detroit, my parents didn't want to move, but they didn't want to send to me DPS either. So I got shipped of to a Catholic elementary and high school. One of my favorite teachers of all time was our high school's priest guy was pretty tough, but he was also a riot. Who expects a priest to imply they were growing weed in the seminary's garden or tell off color jokes? I don't remember what we were talking about, but a relatively new student who had never take one of his classes pipes up "but the Bible says.." to which he replied "Well, the Bible says a lot of things!!". Gets out his chair, Bible in hand and loudly proclaims "The problem with some of you called Christians is trying read something written by ancient Jews and like 21st century Americans. Stop it!!". Few things set him off like trying read the Bible literally and with no historical context.

So I don't get why some liberals try to out fundy the fundies when you think about it, it doesn't make sense.

I see it as another tool in the toolbox, not that I plan to personally go around arguing theology with people. But some may find this knowledge useful. Also let's not forget the civil rights movement, would say you that MLK's moral arguments had no place in the conversation, while groups like the Southern Baptist were arguing favor of segregation?

[Plantaganet]

6. Yes, actually.

As a gay man I would say that moral arguments have no place in the conversation. They've done enough damage already.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. But not everything is vague

I understand that a degree of interpretation is required to derive meaning from certain Biblical passages, but there's really two problems that emerge from that argument.

1- Trotsky already mentioned this, but to reiterate: no one can really objectively declare their interpretation superior to anothe. While there's a logical, secular argument for most social issues, arguing from scripture is a zero-sum game.

2- There are passages of the Bible for which historical context and interpretation are irrelevant.

The book of Leviticus commands homosexual men be put to death. There is no alternative interpretation of this passage that does not conclude "gay + male = dead". If we look at it in its historical context, we can conclude gay-hating was du jure in the Bronze Age Levant, that this wasn't outside the normative attitudes of the day, but that doesn't change the passage's meaning. It's a horrible passage, and like it or not, it is in the book. The argument, therefore, is not "The Bible is a good book, people just read it wrong", but "The Bible is a good book, if you ignore all the bad parts".

The same logic applies to virtually any work out there. Twilight, I am sure, is a terrific movie, if you ignore all the crappy parts.

Regarding the civil rights movement, I would say simply this: If you tossed the Bible out the window, MLK would still have a lot legs to stand on. The segregationists, however, would have none.

[Plantaganet]

10. This.

[okasha]

14. "But that's my interpretation"

gets a lot of F's in literature classes. That "no one can really objectively declare their interpretation superior to another" is simply silly. If that were true, I would have had to give full points to a student who argued that the similarities between the Gilgamesh version of the Flood and the Biblical story of Noah were due to the Sumerian authors' cribbing from Genesis. (He got zero points on that question and flunked his final as a result.) But you're telling me I shouldn't have graded him down. Bullshit.

One of my art teachers' words are also relevant here. A first-semester student replied to criticism with "But that's my artistic license." The teacher's response was "Son, you don't even have your learner's permit yet."

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Your analogy needs work

I would have had to give full points to a student who argued that the similarities between the Gilgamesh version of the Flood and the Biblical story of Noah were due to the Sumerian authors' cribbing from Genesis.

This is not an "interpretation". This is an opinion. One is an explanation of meaning, the other is a judgment. That you are conflating these terms is reason enough to dismiss this trite tale out of hand.

But I'll take it a step further, and demonstrate precisely what I mean:

What is the character of Jesus as described in the New Testament? Is he a revolutionary? A faith healer? A cynic? An apocalyptic prophet? Which one of these interpretations is correct? Why are those that remain incorrect?

Obviously, the elements are all there within the text, and there is no one authoritative interpretation on the matter. End of story. Thank you. Good day.

[okasha]

17. An "interpretation" is an opinion.

An interpretation that can be supported from the text gets more credit than one that does not. Just out of curiosity, why do you assume that only one of the "interpretations" you cit can be correct?

And a good day to you, too.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Are you serious?

You are making a fallacy of composition. An interpretation is an opinion. An opinion, however, is not necessarily an interpretation.

An interpretation that can be supported from the text gets more credit than one that does not.

As I have already stated, an interpretation is an explanation of meaning. Ergo, an "interpretation" is an opinion which is necessarily restricted to the content of the text. "The Epic of Gilgamesh is a commentary on the ineluctability of death, and the capricious nature of the gods" is an interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. "The Sumerians totally riffed off the Hebrews" is not. It involves nothing from the source material, and is derived entirely from outside knowledge (decidedly incorrect outside knowledge at that). It is an opinion of authorship, not an explanation of meaning.

Frankly, you should have failed your student for not even answering the question you asked (assuming you asked for an interpretation).

Just out of curiosity, why do you assume that only one of the "interpretations" you cit can be correct?

I don't.

I have stated quite clearly that I don't.

That I have stated quite clearly that I don't is only the reason you are arguing with me. Are you deliberately backtracking or do you seriously not remember what claim it is you are making?

[okasha]

20. Yes.

N/T

[Lordquinton]

16. I've always wondered

How did he justify the many passages that are pro-slavery into his message?

[dimbear]

4. This is the cold hard truth. Liberals can go all David/Jonathan etc. until they're blue in the

face. The Bible is dead set against homosexuality. It's a good reason to be dead set against the Bible.

[Plantaganet]

5. Agreed.

Anyone who genuinely wants to support the gay community has to do it outside of and against the Bible.

[backscatter712]

8. I suppose I'd better stone you to death for wearing blended fabrics.

But you're right - we're talking about a Bronze Age book of fairy tales made up by illiterate or barely-literate sheepherders, so excuse me for not taking it seriously when I ponder moral questions in the 21st century.

[mr blur]

18. No! You're wrong!

It's a Bronze Age book of fairy tales made up by illiterate or barely-literate goatherders, surely?

[backscatter712]

7. The bible's like a Rorschach inkblot.

You can interpret the Bible to justify whatever you want.

I can quote the usual verses from Leviticus and Romans to justify hate against homosexuality (and shaving, and shellfish, and blended fabrics...)

Or I can quote the story of David & Jonathan from 1st & 2nd Samuel, where David mourns the death of Jonathan by saying his love was more pleasant than the love of women. Don't tell me that was a platonic bromance.

[Phillip McCleod]

11. i agree... there is no 'correct' interpretation of the bible.

such arguments might be useful however for fencesitters more than fundies. don't expect to change a fundy's mind by any method either reason or biblical. it's the other ones.. the wavering who maybe just need to be nudged to have the lightbulb moment. for *some* of them i could see such arguments-from-interpreted-authority being eye-opening. i can easily envision my aunt 'd.a.' for instance some day being convinced to support equal rights for queer folk by some argument that uses the bible to leverage already existing cognitive dissonance (her daughter's gay friends are awesome, or whatever it is..)

she just needs an excuse.. one she can take to the beauty parlor.

[cbayer]

12. Interesting article. Cross posted in Interfaith Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1264344