I’ve had thoughts such as this one for quite some time now, specifically for few years now. What baffles me is how a lot of our countrymen (and women of course) who are homosexuals seem to let themselves be persecuted by their religion for being such. Of course by religion here I’m referring to Catholicism and Islam, and their denominations. The dilemma, I think, arises when they seek acknowledgment in their respective religions, whereas their religion’s holy scriptures explicitly denounce them outright.
The Bible is littered with verses explicitly condemning homosexuals, even grouping them with thieves, extortioners, and so on:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“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” – Leviticus 20:13
And so many more.
sources:
- Your very own Bible
- http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective
- http://www.bible-knowledge.com/Homosexuality-and-the-Bible.html
The Qur’an is not so explicit with homosexuality and how homosexuals should be treated, as the passages below quickly glance over the topic:
Sura 7:80-84: “And Lot, when he said to his people, ‘Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in? Verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.’
Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.
sources:
- Your local copy of the Qur’an
- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/27/index.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla1.htm
Of course, the fact that the Qur’an is quite mum about homosexuality does not mean homosexuals aren’t being mistreated. Au contraire, homosexuals are quite persecuted, based on their sexuality, amidst the more tolerant take of the Qur’an on homosexuals, relative to the Bible (see 3rd source above).
In fact, I could probably go so far as to say that a significant number of homosexuals in the country are quite religious, even fanatical. They appeal to their local churches to be able to take part in fiestas and such. How I wish that they’d reconsider and rethink their position regarding their belief. If only they’d realize that non-belief offers a serenity in mind, heart, and so on regarding their sexuality, which the Bible, the Qur’an, nor their followers can barely provide. One would think that non-believers would immediately acquire the support of a significant number of the homosexual population, given that both 1) were/are being persecuted by a largely religious society 2) holy scriptures both group them together as sinners. Unfortunately that isn’t the case, I’m thinking. It would be a pleasant surprise though if I were proven wrong.
Finally, one could also say that these things happen to homosexual believers, since apart from their sexuality, they’re no different from the average joe who believes in Creation and a stalker god in the sky. If that is so, then all the more reason to let them realize they have a better option or alternative.
[…] Belief, non-belief, and homosexuality […]
The real issue/kicker here is that homosexuality is such a big problem, whereas it shouldn't be. We should be worrying more about more essential matters such how to feed hungry people across the world, or to lessen our carbon footprints.
It would also help if homosexuals, who use up a great percentage of their time and efforts into being accepted into a relatively fatuous, organized religion such as Catholicism, use their time and effort instead to more productive causes.
People can't help what they are. Homosexuality is not a disease but unfortunately, it's an argument of acceptance by a public who is as amoral or immoral in certain cases more than one.
People look at it on a visual point of view rather than looking at the cause and that is a grievous mistake.
What people don't understand they shun with great resistance.
What people interpret literally, they go with it hook, line and sinker. Case in parallel, the sin of sloth which modern science discovered to be nothing but clinical depression and we can't help that because people are falter and people have feelings and people process what goes through the bands, the nose, the mouth, the ears…unfortunately, the velocity and time before it reaches the brain is something else.
I am just being pragmatic about the topic.
Yeah I quite agree. Plus, I recently did some software work connected to adoption here in the PH, and guess what? They only accept heterosexual couples. And lo and behold, I think at least 90% of those couples are part of the 3 great monotheistic religions or their denominations.
If you watch Penn & Teller, season 3 episode 2 talks about gay marriage and how morally responsible they can be as couples and as parents.
In fact, one of the highlights in another episode, and a recurring thing for Penn, is he dislikes the Boy Scouts of America since they're anti-gay. Imagine what it would be like for boy scouts here in the PH.
@Francis
Indeed. But I think for that to happen, our countrymen would first need to be educated as they will never understand why we need such equal rights/opportunities if they continue to think non-heteronormative practices as aberrations. Around here, there seems to be a prevalent, tolerated ignorance when it comes to non-heteronormative expressions of sexuality. As an example, for many Filipinos, to be "gay" is to be both homosexual and transgender. They can't seem to imagine one without the other: transgendered men are presumed to be homosexual, and homosexual men and women are presumed to identify with the opposite sex.
There is also the issue of sexualising all forms of intimacy (which is another story reserved for another time).
Perhaps these issues are unnoticeable to many self-identified default heterosexuals but for us who have to live under a society that incorrectly and insultingly labels every "non-straight" as "bakla" (confused), it is impossible not to lament.
@Aldrin
I was referring to gay men who want to participate in fiestas and parades. I don't hear as much news locally about lesbians though. Overseas, especially in the U.S. I think the battle is for same sex marriage, as well as child adoption. Hopefully our country will get to those issues asap.
@Francis:
In fact, I could probably go so far as to say that a significant number of homosexuals in the country are quite religious, even fanatical. They appeal to their local churches to be able to take part in fiestas and such.
I'm thinking you have the effeminate in mind? Cross-gendered men used to be important religious figures here in the Philippines… until the Spaniards came.
Related reading: <a href="http://www.iias.nl/nl/35/iias_nl35_13.pdf” target=”_blank”>www.iias.nl/nl/35/iias_nl35_13.pdf
Hey thanks for the really informative discussions guys. I'm learning quite a lot here again.
Thanks and let's keep our skepticism high. 🙂
@Danny
1) I'm sorry if you feel that it's "petty and pedantic" but this is important to me. I am not simply "raising a stink for the sake of it". Call it a pet peeve and I won't argue but linguistic miscalculations can be terribly itchy. I have already shown you why in the case of αρσενοκοιται, which was, by the way, neither a generic noun/adjective (as 'homosexual' is today) nor something commonly used (in formal speech or otherwise).
2) I see no red herrings here. My arguments have no effect, positive or negative, to Francis' article. His points remain. Mine are merely side comments which he can choose to welcome or not.
3) 'Homosexual' and 'sodomite' (practitioners of non-reproductive sex) can be misleading if we were to use them in place of αρσενοκοιται. There are many editions that do not use these words because of this reason. The New International Reader’s Version uses "men who commit homosexual acts", Wycliffe New Testament uses "they that do lechery with men", Worldwide English (New Testament) uses "men who have sex with other men", New Life Version uses "people who do sex sins with their own sex", and so on.
4) I repeat: the ancient Greeks (like their neighbours) did not have a word for 'homosexual' as most westerners understand the word today. It is a relatively new concept, and not at all universal. When we look at a passage like 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Greek word αρσενοκοιται describes those who commit an action, male-to-male sex, NOT those who happen to find members of the same sex attractive – an inclination that would have probably been common at that time.
In my long years arguing against the 'sexual apartheid' of popular western culture, I would think it safe to say that these matters are not petty things.
The argument against using the word homosexual is, as I see it, petty and pedantic. Yes, αρσενοκοιται is a masculine noun. Yes, homosexual is a generic noun. Does that mean that we cannot use one to mean the other? Why not? Because it ruffles our politically correct sensibilities? Cause we want to raise a stink just for the sake of it? All I've seen are red herrings that does not address the issue. Did the ancient greeks have a word for homosexual? Yes, but it's a masculine noun. So what? Ancient Greece was no egalitarian society and we expect (and indeed see) generic nouns with masculine endings. Do we reserve translating every greek word in english generics if the original is only written in masculine? I'm sorry, but that is just silly.
The only other viable alternative is sodomite, and some english translations use the term. I think it's a bit better, but I do not begrudge other translations that use homosexual. It can be an appropriate translation based on the context of the passage.
so there's nothing in the bible against lesbian relationships?
discriminatory! 😀
Aldrin: Show me an ancient language which had a word for ‘homosexual’.
Me: αρσενοκοιται
Aldrin: This word referred only to males who frequently performed sexual acts with other males.
Me: Well, that is what a homosexual is, at least the male variety. I still think homosexual is the proper translation for the word in that verse and you haven't shown any other word that suffices (maybe sodomite?).
@wes
Hehe nice one. I guess since women already take from the original sin of Eve and that women are generally considered more sinful IIRC, then perhaps woman to woman relationships aren't as bad anymore. 🙂
@Danny
I think what Aldrin means is that the word, literally translated, means "male fucker" while the English word "homosexual" can both be used for males and females. Hence, as Aldrin said, there's no proper English word for it. Of course there are slang words, but no dictionary words I think.
@Danny:
I think I have already shown you the problems of using the word 'homosexual' in place of 'αρσενοκοιται'. Like I told Francis, I don't think there's a proper word for it since we are talking about two different languages here with two different mindsets, separated by almost 2,000 years. In my opinion, we shouldn't be approximating at the expense of accuracy. Perhaps English should invent new words?
However, I am not proposing any alternative. What I am merely arguing here are the problems with the current usage.
Ah thanks for the info @Aldrin.
@Francis:
I don't think there is a proper modern translation as there is no *proper* modern word for a male who performs coitus with other males. A colloquial or crude translation, perhaps, but not anything polite or clinical. 'Homosexual' is hardly a candidate as it refers to both male-to-male and female-to-female sexuality while "αρσενοκοιται" refers only to males who have sex with other males (cf. MSM). Also, the latter gives no reference to emotions, only specific acts.
Additional: If I remember my Greek correctly, "αρσενοκοιται" literally means "male-bed", the second word pertaining to sexual intercourse not the actual bed.
Yes, I agree, the meaning is clear regardless of how we translate it: the Bible is generally homophobic. Though one can't help but be reminded of the love between David and Jonathan… 😉
@Aldrin
Thanks for the info. What would you say is the proper translation of the word in this case? Is it the direct to English translation, in this case "male fucker"?
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, regardless of the use of the relatively modern word "homosexual", I think the Bible still speaks for itself as being generally homophobic in nature.
@Francis:
Yes, they most certainly had the notion of "homosexuality" in those days (as homosexual practices were prevalent) but not in the same way a lot of Westerners see it today. It wasn't an identity or an ideology you subscribed to like "hey, I'm gay" or "that is so gay". It was simply an act or a feeling.
Of course, this is not to say that every one was fine with it. Some probably didn't, some did, and some didn't care.
There's one thing we know from the records, though: the full condemnation of homosexual acts and/or feelings as well as non-reproductive heterosexual sex and gender transitive behaviours came from the Christians (though there is some evidence it was still practised in secret even amongst them).
@Danny:
I wouldn't say properly translated. Roughly translated, maybe. The word "αρσενοκοιται" (ar-se-no-kee-teh) is a compound word comprised of "arseno" (male) and "koitos" (fucker). From what I know, it was used as a pejorative by the CHRISTIAN Greeks not the pagan ones who were, more or less, nonchalant to homosexual acts. This word referred only to males who frequently performed sexual acts with other males.
None the less, I think it's clear that (Snt) Paul was against homosexual acts as did many of his Jewish predecessors.
@Danny
Wow, nice job. Where did you find out about that word?
@Aldrin,
The word is αρσενοκοιται and it is properly translated as "homosexual".
@Aldrin
It is quite odd to see the word homosexual in the modern Bible. It's probably a good idea and challenge to at one point in time be able to find out how that got there. I do think, though this is mere speculation, that although they had the notion of homosexuality during the time of the Bible, that the word itself might have not existed at all. But then again, perhaps the word just fits the bill, making it easier for people like us to really see the Bible for what it is? I mean, if you take out the word 'homosexual' I think the Bible still turns out as pretty homophobic.
At least the translators of the Qur'an didn't include the word. Just allusions to it.
Check this out guys:
<cite>Gay penguins book is most banned
Book cover for And Tango Makes Three
And Tango Makes Three is the top most controversial book
Authors, artists and musicians are due to gather at a library in San Francisco to protest against the banning of books in schools and libraries in the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8284509.stm </cite>
Whoever translated that first verse probably had an anti-homosexual agenda. Show me an ancient language which had a word for 'homosexual'. We know no languages today (with the exception of globalised English) which distinguish heterosexually inclined people from homosexually inclined ones.
Probably one of the reasons a lot of openly gay men and women in North America revert to paganism or 'convert' to Neopaganism is because not only is bisexually tolerated, it's celebrated, too. And hey, if you're asexual, they can celebrate that, too.
@Romeo
Exactly, it is natural. 🙂
If you are a homo and a religious one, then you are not serious about your religion. It is just a form of hypocresy which is worse. If your religion condemns you a homosexuals then why stay and remain religious? Is it not time to do a lot of rational thinking to resolve this? It is either be a rational homo or an irrational homo (a religious homo),
Christianity, what else ? : (
It's sad when religion makes people hate themselves so much that they're pressured to resort to degrading acts like this. Note how the pastor keeps on using double-speak like "we love gay people but we still think they're going to hell" and its not enough that gay people don't do the deed, even thinking it and you still go to hell.
Friendlyatheist has the article and videos: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/09/25/exorcised-g…
Really? What backward religion or culture is this?
Have you seen the video of a gay exorcism rite? They actually equate gayness to demonic possession
homosexual behaviour exists in other animals. it is natural.
Yeah, it strikes me weird too. I don't have anything against homosexuals (at least the benevolent ones anyway) but to see them lobbying for their church's approval, while their church keeps on telling them their holy scripture doesn't acknowledge them, is pretty disappointing. How I wish those people would see it clearly and instead focus their time on much more worthwhile efforts.
Just to be clear, the more progressive Christians I've talked to point out that the book of Leviticus is strictly a Jewish tradition, and is disconnect from the way many of them practice their religion today.
On the other hand, I have yet to find any particular statements directly from Jesus saying his stance on Homosexuality. The closest the fundies have ever drawn up is Paul's letter to the Romans, though technically, that's not Jesus talking. That's Paul talking, and I've always seen him as a sexually depraves, conservative old prude.
So where does that leave the conservative's argument of their intolerance against gays stemming from the Bible? Just my two cents on the matter
I never really get religious homosexuals….the picture is really really wrong, annoying even…