Why is it so hard to have a dialogue about homosexuality?
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:15 pm
Please Read What My Question Actually Is Before Responding to The Title of this Post
So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).
1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.
2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.
3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?
And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).
Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).
So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).
1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.
2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.
3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?
And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).
Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).
As for Kinsey, it was pioneering work, but the methods and controls are very dated and with low reliability, basing it's findings more on anecdotes than actual observation of hetero-homo behavior. The scale is much too simplistic, artificially symmetrical and, I'm afraid, biased. I'm sure there is a gradation, but the one they show is absurd.