Link

[wildeabandon]

rosefox has posted a really interesting interpretation of that passage from Leviticus, and you should all go and read it.

Comments

[rosefox]

Thank you! I'm glad it resonated.

[ex_inklessej388]

I read it. It was great but I feel like she missed the mark but came really, really close to it. Yes, the passage is patriarchal...we are talking about a document that is central to the tres patriarchal Judeo-Christian society. But, the crux of the argument as to why *that* passage from Leviticus is irrelevant is because of the Hebrew to English translation of the phrase "insert like a brush into a tube." The fact brush is used implies a forced or painful sexual experience, it is actually more dipping into rape and forced sex. The greatest argument against any reference to homosexual in the Bible (especially the OT) is that the Hebrew phrases often line up more with group sex, rape, promiscuous sex, etc or all of these things even the most progressive sexual people regard as being taboo. When the English translation comes around it seems to remove the brutal nature of these phrases and replaces them with common phrases for sex, even sex among consenting adults. That is a departure from the text. When Leviticus condemns homosexual acts it is condemning the lavish and frankly disgusting sexual practices of many heathen states in the time the document was written of slave owners taking slave boys whenever they wanted, sex being traded and handles as another commodity. The exclusive homosexual relationship among two people who are God fearing and otherwise good Christians/Jews is simply not part of the Biblical context in any sort of way. Even the story of Sodom is more about not raping strangers in your town than it is about men having sex with men (the translation mix up there is the Hebrew for the English word "men" in that passage is actually more accurately translated to "townspeople" which would have to include the women of the town as well).

At any rate, thanks for sharing, I enjoy the read. I just felt the arrow could have went a little further to drive the point home.

In our next issue we can talk about how the "servant" in the story of the Roman centurion who tracks Jesus down to ask for Him to heal the boy, is in fact more accurately translated as his sexual partner...so Jesus may very well have healed a homosexual lover and of course He knew what He was doing.

[wildeabandon]

I'll respond in more depth tomorrow, but just a quick note that rosefox's pronouns are they/them/theirs

[ex_inklessej388]

I am incredibly embarrassed.

[rosefox]

Hi! I'm they/them.

The Torah commentary I was reading noted that both men are only liable for punishment if they both consent; cases of rape are different. Here's one example. (The Chizkuni was a 13th-century French rabbi.)

I'm more convinced by this analysis of man vs. male, but it still doesn't address the troubling element where both people involved are considered to be so guilty they deserve to die.

[ex_inklessej388]

Tremendously sorry for not using your correct pronoun. If I could edit I would go back and fix it. Thanks for the links.

[rosefox]

No worries at all. :)

[wildeabandon]

One thing that jumped out at me from inklessej's comment is that it raises echoes of Dworkin and MacKinnon's arguments about the inherently problematic nature of consent between men and women under patriarchy.