-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religions and homosexual men
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Posted in another thread: Manusmriti, Verse 175, Chapter 11:
"A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.*"
* I suppose so that his clothes also are purified.
"A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.*"
* I suppose so that his clothes also are purified.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I take the stance that the whole thing about male homosexuality in the case of the Bible, isn't about homosexuality at all. The problem is that the refutations to my ideas are just as strong as my ideas themselves. So rather than myself being able to write down a strong argument, I just end up going in circles myself, as various verses both prove my view, and prove their view, respectively.
This was what prompted this post as I hadn’t been familiar with this one yet
Hi @Meow Mix
My best guess:
1/ The major world religions have arisen out of patriarchal societies where men have dominated women. So the focus has been more on men than women.
2/ In more primitive societies the spread of disease has been a central concern of religion. Sexual acts between men are more likely to spread diseases compared women.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
To further elaborate @Meow Mix - in some studies, the Bible verses about homosexuality, also seem to be talking about pedophilia, having a dual meaning, suggesting that there were some issues with pedophilia back then. This causes some modern day Christians to confuse the meaning, and relate male homosexuality with pedophilia. There's also the possibility that these verses were talking only about pedophilia, and adding homosexual interpretations in was something done much later.
I also take the stance that Sodom and Gamorrah wasn't about homosexuality, but rape and inhospitality.
I also take the stance that Sodom and Gamorrah wasn't about homosexuality, but rape and inhospitality.
We know that pederasty was a thing in Greece, presumably before Jesus. So there's that I guess.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Here's further reading - consider it a part 3 of my post: Can we stop taking everything at face value?
I guess it raises the question: if gods are against homosexuality (for whatever reason that I can't fathom, caring about whom adults love and make love with, and can't help whom they're attracted to, etc.), why not be more clear about it in the instruction manual? What are people to think if men are admonished, but not women?
Per the article it makes it sound like the original word used in that infamous Leviticus passage was "pederast" rather than a word for a homosexual. That's interesting if that's true. Any Bible exegesis experts in the house?
Edit: I wonder how that passage went in the Septuagint.
Last edited:
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
discrimination?
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Yes, my assumption is that the Bible authors lived in a patriarchal and homophobia culture (more so than now!). In any case, ancient religious texts need to be understood in their historical and cultural context.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
Not wanting to debate the issue at all but what do you think they are about if not homosexuality?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Check the other 2 posts I made.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I have heard that about Sodom and Gomorrah. I think they had also enflamed their lusts through lack of restraint and ended up lacking in any self control and seeing the satisfying of their lusts as more important than anything.
Sirona
Hindu Wannabe
No Bible expert, but I did read a lot of Greek mythology. To the Greeks we owe a certain contempt for women, since to them man was considered the measure of all things. Begetting children was considered a kind of "duty", while the "higher" love was that between a man and a male youth (from 14 years old). This practice was a "nobler" pleasure for the man, while for the male youth it was considered "character-building" and thus a kind of transition to the adult world.
An example of this practice in Greek mythology are Hylas and Heracles (Hercules).
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I would argue that the men of these religions feel uniquely threatened by homosexual men, and that this is because homosexual men are problematic to the patriarchial order these religions have sprung from in ways that homosexual women are not.
They understand, and are fundamentally built upon the idea masculinity as a function of dominant behavior over feminity, in all aspects of life, from cultural to everyday behavior, from familial to sexual relationships: To be a masculine male is to be dominant, and to display that dominance outwardly and inwardly. This dominance carries over into their understanding of sex and sexuality, with straight sex conceived as an act of the male subjugation of hia female counterpart.
Now, when a man has sex with another man, this understanding is rendered paradoxical: Because they can only understand sexuality in terms of subjugation, they see homosexual couplings as instances of one man subjugating another. And since maleness and masculinity are intrinsically tied to displays of dominance, this "subjugation" makes men less men, un-men if you will; it fundamentally upsets their views of masculinity and their understanding of male sexuality. The display of male-on-male sexuality threatens the idea of masculinity-as-dominance, and thus the very social order men have erected based on their masculine dominance.
Female homosexuality, by comparison, is seen as less problematic because homosexual women can still be subjugated by men, and so do not always threaten the understanding of masculinity-as-dominance, and by extension their entire patriarchial order, to the same degree as homosexual men do. (Feminist women, on the other hand, very definitely do, and I would argue that a large portion of the hostility levied against homosexual women these days is in fact intended to attack feminists instead)
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Wow, that was well spoken. This whole masculinity/subjugation thing is still so prevalent in society that I believed some of that crap (until I became a feminist, go figure): men that enjoy sex are heroes, women that enjoy sex are sluts, men **** and women get ****ed (though I still use this parlance more simply in terms of who is acting and who is acted upon, it had a more abstractly dominating connotation in my previous understanding: sex was something done to women, not something shared by and enjoyed with women), etc. etc.
I used to think giving a blowjob was degrading (and though I tried this in highschool exactly once when I was trying to lie to myself and trying to be straight, I would be glad that I would never have to do it), until I figured out that all of these feelings were basically a cultural hammer being used to beat down women and their sexuality.
Then I figured out women can like sex, and enthusiastically participate in it and initiate it (rather than having something done "to" them), no sex act is degrading unless someone actively wants it to be, so on and so forth. SO much toxicity in the culture that had to be cleansed around sex (the act) and gender.