• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    49 months ago

    Maybe it’s the primary anti-gay story, but aren’t there verses about “not lying with a man as with a woman”? And the punishment for that is to be stoned to death?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      89 months ago

      There is, but the translation is not perfect and I have seen the argument that the Hebrew translates closer to “you shall not lie with a close male relative as you would your wife” since there is a lot of incest mentioned in the list of prohibitions, or I’ve also seen it argued that it’s implying “male sex worker”, the word for “man” in that passage is not the normal word for “man” used in the rest of the Bible.

      And I have also heard the context of the entire section being about priestly purity, so it’s more like you wouldn’t be able to perform rituals after having the wrong type of sex until you are purified, but it’s on the same level as women being unclean when they are menstruating.

      But the better argument to me is that Leviticus is specifically part of the Jewish Law, and people since the Apostle Paul have been saying you can’t keep the Jewish Law and be a good Christian, because Jesus replaced all those rules. So it’s actually a sin if you’re Christian and insisting people abide by the rules in Levitivus.

      (This is why I think this stuff is interesting)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59 months ago

      But married heteros doing oral, anal, mutual masturbation, or sex during a period is all forbidden. Yet all queer hating Christians don’t speak out against any of that hetero/married sin.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 months ago

        Oh, I’m sure if the killjoys managed to outlaw homosexuality again they would come for those things next.

        • kase
          link
          fedilink
          English
          39 months ago

          It’d definitely be ‘oral for me, but not for thee’