Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[Jrosemary]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

I understand what you're getting at here. I understand that it drives you crazy to see someone taking one verse in Leviticus and 'cherry picking' it. And, yeah, I think it's ridiculous for people who eat bacon cheeseburgers to appeal to Leviticus when they want to argue against homosexuality.

However, is it necessary to hold up halacha--roughly translated, Jewish law--to ridicule in this argument? I'm a Conservative Jew and a lesbian who follows a good deal of the religious disciplines that comprise halacha. I keep kosher--I don't eat shrimp, pork or any other disallowed food. I don't mix meat and dairy, etc. I'm working on becoming more and more Shabbat (Sabbath) observant.

So whenever I see someone making an argument that seems to say, "Ha, ha, ha, ha--look how silly these laws are! How can anyone take this stuff seriously," well, it raises my hackles.

In my ideal world, the Torah would not consider a man lying with another man as if he were a woman a toevah---abomination. However, since neither God nor Moses nor the authors of the Torah consulted me on the matter, I didn't get to make that call. However, if it must be a toevah, I'm glad that certain violations of kashrut--the kosher laws--are also a toevah. This, I think, is why Judaism has never been as obsessed with homosexuality as Christianity (or certain branches of Christianity) sometimes seems to be. There are lots of Jews who are gay; there are lots of Jews who don't keep kosher. In Judaism, there's no reason to judge one group any harsher than the other.

Moreover, when you take halacha seriously, it forces you to ask what's really forbidden. Conservative Judaism--my branch--has dealt with this over the past few years and come to the conclusion that while there is an argument for continuing a ban on gay marriage, there's also a reason to say that gay marriage is halachically permitted. Lesbian marriages, in fact, don't prove much of a problem halachically . . . and it may be that only one particular act between two men is a toevah. There are other issues bound up with this, of course, which is why this question has generated mounds of responses in our Law Committee. The upshot, however, is that each individual congregation in Conservative Judaism can sit down with their own rabbi and law committee and decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. (Mine does allow it.)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 16

Hello Miss Jrosemary, welcome to the forums. I argue here with respect for your position; as an atheist I don't consider any religious laws as binding from a god.

>quote mining for clarity<

I'm a Conservative Jew and a lesbian who follows a good deal of the religious disciplines that comprise halacha. I keep kosher--I don't eat shrimp, pork or any other disallowed food. I don't mix meat and dairy, etc. I'm working on becoming more and more Shabbat (Sabbath) observant.

Doesn't it "cheapen" any law when you disregard one in favor of another?

If these laws are truly "God-given", shouldn't we strive to follow all of them?

In my ideal world, the Torah would not consider a man lying with another man as if he were a woman a toevah---abomination. However, since neither God nor Moses nor the authors of the Torah consulted me on the matter, I didn't get to make that call.

But you accept that eating shrimp is bad? I'm trying to understand why one "abomination" is < or > another.

There are lots of Jews who are gay; there are lots of Jews who don't keep kosher. In Judaism, there's no reason to judge one group any harsher than the other.

I do respect this about the Jews. I still get hung up on why it's okay to follow "only" the laws one chooses.

The upshot, however, is that each individual congregation in Conservative Judaism can sit down with their own rabbi and law committee and decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. (Mine does allow it.)

As a matter of government, I support the rights of folks to marry who they choose. However, when a god says "don't do it", I gotta wonder why some would go against this. I think its a bit of cognitive dissonance to say God wouldn't allow man-man marriage, but woman-woman would be okay.

What particular passages support your position here?

[Jrosemary]

I think its a bit of cognitive dissonance to say God wouldn't allow man-man marriage, but woman-woman would be okay.

What particular passages support your position here?

Apologies for taking your quotes out of order, but I think I can answer them more smoothly this way.

The reason why it's easier in Judaism to allow lesbianism than sexual relations between two men is because the Torah, along with the rest of the Hebrew Bible, is silent on the subject of lesbians. You wouldn't know lesbianism exists if you read the Hebrew Bible by itself. On the other hand, the Torah specifically calls one man lying with another man as if he were a woman a toevah--an abomination.

There are Talmudic references to lesbianism. (The Talmud, which contains arguments and commentaries on the Torah, as well as lots of other stuff, is also Scripture in Judaism.) The rabbis, shall we say, frowned on it. But that's all they did. There's nothing equivalent to calling lesbianism a toevah.

That being the case, when this issue came up in the past few years to the Conservative Law Committee, I was praying that the Committee would not do the unthinkable--decide that a marriage between two women does not violate halacha while a marriage between two men does. (Either we all walk forward together, or together we should all stay where we are.)

However, I can see the halachic argument for allowing one and not the other. Fortunately, I don't think anyone in Conservative Judaism wanted to go there--as the responses of the Law Committee have born out.

But you accept that eating shrimp is bad? I'm trying to understand why one "abomination" is < or > another.

My argument is that one is not any better or worse than the other. The Torah regards both a man lying with another man as if he were a woman and certain violations of kashrut (the kosher laws) as a toevah.

I agree with some responses from the Conservative Law Committee that probably only the specific act of anal intercourse between two men constitutes a toevah according to the Torah--and you don't have to forbid marriage between two men just because that one act is halachically problematic.

I still get hung up on why it's okay to follow "only" the laws one chooses . . .

Doesn't it "cheapen" any law when you disregard one in favor of another?

If these laws are truly "God-given", shouldn't we strive to follow all of them?

'God-given' is a loaded term! I don't know if God actually gave halacha--full and complete--to Moses or not. (You'll find, the more you deal with Judaism, that it's not a particularly belief-based religion. Beliefs have a place--but they're quite varied and, ultimately, deed outweighs creed in Judaism.)

Here's a good principle to follow if you ever decide to become an observant Jew to any degree: if it's easy, just do it. It's easy to make sure you don't buy clothes that are a mixture of wool and linen, so don't. It's easy to recite the Sh'ma upon waking up and going to sleep, so recite it. It's easy to light the candles on Friday night, so why not? For vegetarians and vegans, keeping kosher is a snap--so why wouldn't they? (Heck, it's almost impossible not to keep kosher if you're a vegan.)

As one guy in my synagogue points out, "Our religion is full of hard stuff. Let's get the simple stuff down."

What happens when it's hard or controversial stuff? If it's just hard--well, we hope we'll get there eventually. But Judaism has never said "do all of this or else!" Judaism is not an all-or-nothing religion.

It's very hard for some people to observe Shabbat, for example, because of the nature of their jobs. (Not counting people, like doctors, police, etc., who work in emergency fields. An emergency profession--and any emergency--overrides Shabbat regulations.) But the world doesn't come crashing to a halt if you don't observe Shabbat; we all know this. Do what you can, sometimes little by little.

(I don't fully observe Shabbat, but on the rare occassions when I have completely done so--what a blessing! Imagine a whole day dedicated just to your family, friends, reading, prayer, meditation, yoga . . . it's a slice of heaven. I have no excuse for not observing it fully more often. Just can't get off the darn computer!)

As to the controversial--well, let's say for the sake of argument that HaShem (that means 'the Name;' it's a way of referring to the God of Israel) did ordain the whole of halacha. I'm nonetheless willing to argue with HaShem if a given aspect of halacha seems to violate the dignity of a human being. So I'm ok with saying, "Look, HaShem, I think You're wrong to say that a man lying with another man is a toevah--whether You're forbidding one particular act or any sexual relationship between them. In my opinion, their human dignity is at stake."

Abraham and Moses both show us that it's ok to argue with HaShem--but they only did so over intensely serious matters; in fact, as far as I can remember, only when human lives were at stake. Moses didn't bother arguing with HaShem over not being allowed to eat shrimp.

Personally, I think the issue of human dignity that I see as inherent in the question of gay marriage is worth arguing with HaShem about.

That said, I also think the Conservative branch of Judaism reached an acceptable conclusion. Conservative Judaism acknowledged that there are good arguments for saying that gay marriage is not halachic--and equally good arguments for saying that gay marriage is halachic. That being the case, it should be left up to the rabbis and law committe of each indivdual shul.

That may not be a perfect solution, but it's one I can live with.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 18

>I may scramble your replies for the same reason of clarity<

'God-given' is a loaded term! I don't know if God actually gave halacha--full and complete--to Moses or not...

I keep forgetting this fundamental aspect of Judaism. Please forgive my lack of understanding or confusion. I like that Jews consider their own laws to be up to debate, and that they actually do debate them. With this jogging of my memory in mind...

The reason why it's easier in Judaism to allow lesbianism than sexual relations between two men is because the Torah, along with the rest of the Hebrew Bible, is silent on the subject of lesbians. You wouldn't know lesbianism exists if you read the Hebrew Bible by itself.

I see. I also note:

So I'm ok with saying, "Look, HaShem, I think You're wrong to say that a man lying with another man is a toevah--whether You're forbidding one particular act or any sexual relationship between them. In my opinion, their human dignity is at stake."

I do like that Jews consider human dignity of supreme importance, and see how this view can reflect on your position. If a given law lowers human dignity, then it is probably unjust, and given to being disregarded or outmoded.

Abraham and Moses both show us that it's ok to argue with HaShem--but they only did so over intensely serious matters; in fact, as far as I can remember, only when human lives were at stake. Moses didn't bother arguing with HaShem over not being allowed to eat shrimp.

LOL In the grand scheme of things, surely this take is the best.

As one guy in my synagogue points out, "Our religion is full of hard stuff. Let's get the simple stuff down."

And so the complex issue of homosexual marriage can be placed on a "back burner" while "cooler heads prevail". I see how this take could be useful, and deliberate.

As Jews don't tend to be of the "or else" variety, I can see how they are allowed, or compelled, to understand their religion in their own individual way.

That may not be a perfect solution, but it's one I can live with.

I agree. Thanks for your taking time to school me here.

[scottlittlefield17]

Here is my position on that as a Christian. God restated many things in the new testament some with even stricter guidelines. Such as when Jesus said that the old law said not to kill but he says not to even hate. There are a few things however that are not restated in the New Testament. One is the clean versus unclean food. In fact both Jesus and Paul said that all foods were clean. Homosexuality however is restated in the Bible several times. One time being in Romans chapter one. Another example that the New Testament does not us to do is worship on Saturday. All the other ten commandments were reinstated but that one.

[micatala]

Here is my position on that as a Christian. God restated many things in the new testament some with even stricter guidelines. Such as when Jesus said that the old law said not to kill but he says not to even hate. There are a few things however that are not restated in the New Testament. One is the clean versus unclean food. In fact both Jesus and Paul said that all foods were clean. Homosexuality however is restated in the Bible several times. One time being in Romans chapter one. Another example that the New Testament does not us to do is worship on Saturday. All the other ten commandments were reinstated but that one.

But if you look at the context of Romans Chapter 1, you will see that Paul has in mind a specific group of people who were characterized by having already consciously rejected God, and who engaged in the pagan idolatrous practices of the day. I don't see that you can characterize this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality unless you ignore this context.

Remember that a central theme of the NT and Christianity is that the heart is more important than the law. Paul is discussing a group whose hearts have turned against God. Elsewhere in Romans, see chapter 14, Paul discusses how some actions (including those deemed abominations in the OT!) are OK for some believers but not for others, and the distinguishing factor is the state of their hearts or the concsiences. If a person can eat meat with a clear conscience and good faith, then it is Ok for them. If their conscience condemns them, they should not eat it. IN either case, the matter is between the individual believer and God, as long as the person does not act to the detriment of the faith of others.

[Jonah]

Of course, I do not see homosexuality as abomination. Toward that position, I compare intersexuality. I can get no one to state what their position would be.

In my view, an intersexual married to male or female would be just as problematic for the fundamentalist religionist, as a gay marriage. So. I ask if the fundamentalist would also seek to ban marriages between intersexuals and non-intersexuals? If not, why not? Is there is a special cultural aversion to homosexuality rather than something more thoughtful? But if fundamentalists want to seriously move on their bans of gay marriage on moral and theological grounds, wouldn't those same grounds apply to intersexuals?

[puddleglum]

But if you look at the context of Romans Chapter 1, you will see that Paul has in mind a specific group of people who were characterized by having already consciously rejected God, and who engaged in the pagan idolatrous practices of the day. I don't see that you can characterize this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality unless you ignore this context.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 contains a list of sins which will keep a person from the kingdom of God and homosexual practice is included.
The Bible teaches that any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and it also makes it plain that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman.

[GentleDove]

Is homosexuality an abomination (equating homosexuality with shellfish eating)

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.

I understand the OP’s attempt to make a “reductio ad absurdum� argument against the Biblical position against homosexuality by equating it with eating shellfish—“everyone� knows it's ridiculous to prohibit the eating of shellfish, therefore the Bible’s teachings against homosexuality cannot be rational or true.

However, the OP is misrepresenting Scripture here by equivocation of the word “abomination� taken out of proper Scriptural context. (In addition, to a lesser extent, this OP contains the argument fallacies of “appeal to common practice� and “appeal to ridicule,� but I don’t have the time I’d like to go into it right now, so I won’t address those at this time.)

First of all the two Biblical citations of the two OP examples of “abominations� in the Bible are not “on the same page� or in the same context at all. (I do appreciate that the OP cited the Bible chapters and verses.)

First, the context of the shellfish example (in Leviticus 11:10-11) is about the “sin offerings� and what is “clean and unclean� of Leviticus 10. The context is therefore redemptive ceremonial law and holiness as a foreshadow to Christ and the Christian life of separation from the world (see Galatians 3:23-25, Hebrews Chapter 9). Christians eat shellfish because the ceremonial law has been fulfilled in the reality of Christ, and so the shadows are to be done away with.

The wording is this: “But in all the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.� The phrases I have bolded indicate the limited nature of this abomination; the shellfish are to be “regarded as� an abomination by the children of Israel (not everyone on earth). God doesn’t view eating shellfish as inherently abominable; He is teaching His people about holiness and loyalty to God by obeying ceremonial ordinances which God lays down for them.

The homosexual example is a completely different context and wording. In Leviticus 18:22 (BTW, not on the “same page� as the OP stated), God (by Moses) is speaking about keeping His judgments which “a man� (any man, not just Israelites) does, he will live by them (Lev. 18:3-5). The context is that all men must keep these moral judgments (in context, against idolatry and sexual immorality) because if they don’t, they will die by them and remain under God’s wrath, as the Canaanites (Lev. 20:22-23).

The wording is this: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.� Nothing about regarding homosexual sex as an abomination; rather homosexual sex is an abomination in the judgment of God.

I will also quote Lev. 18:24 because it shows the universal (as opposed to Israel-specific) context: “Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.�

Another way to look at it is this: All the universal (for all men), unchanging (has not passed away with the coming of Christ—see Matthew 5:17-19) moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Idolatry breaks the First Commandment. Sexual immorality breaks the Seventh Commandment. The prohibition against eating shellfish does not fall under the rubric of the Ten Commandments because it is not a moral law; it is a ceremonial ordinance, which passed away with the coming of Christ.

Therefore, the OP’s attempt to internally critique the Bible by pulling the same word—abomination—out of their different contexts doesn’t hold water.

[scottlittlefield17]

Good Samwise, that is exactly what I was going to say when I got the time to answer. You stole my thunder but hey, at least that means I am not alone!