3 ms·

Just to be clear, the oldest texts unambiguously condemns male-on-male sex under penalty of death: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a

by goto11 7y ago

Just to be clear, the oldest texts unambiguously condemns male-on-male sex under penalty of death: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV translation https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A...) The translation just doesn't use the specific word "homosexuality" which would be misleading and anachronistic anyway. The modern idea about homosexuality is about being attracted to persons of the same sex. Leviticus doesn't concern itself about any of that, it condemns the specific act of two men having sex. You can argue that the Bible doesn't condemn sex between women though.

RaiseProfits 7y ago
Male on male sex was also a fact of life across many Christian communities, including/especially with monks, eunuchs, and other segregated communities, and people were certainly not frequently put to death for this. You can look up medieval crimes and punishments around the 12th century I think for a decent record of this. Note I am being super reductive, lmk if you want better sources.
- goto11 7y ago
  I'm just pointing out the biblical prohibitions against male-on-male sex is not a recent invention as the GP comment suggested. Of course people did it anyway.
  - RaiseProfits 7y ago
    The bible prohibits many things that never really took root as social mores; I think the transition into society is super fascinating and arguably is an invention of sorts.
gumby 7y ago
Interesting that you chose a modern translation (1973). I just randomly scrolled to another (the orthodox jewish bible) and it says no such thing: "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..." So I don't think you can say "just to be clear" I am neither gay nor part of any religion so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I am interested in hermeneutic philosophy, translation, and, separately, the nature of disagreement.
- goto11 7y ago
  > "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..." What does that mean then?

by goto11 7y ago

RaiseProfits 7y ago

Male on male sex was also a fact of life across many Christian communities, including/especially with monks, eunuchs, and other segregated communities, and people were certainly not frequently put to death for this. You can look up medieval crimes and punishments around the 12th century I think for a decent record of this. Note I am being super reductive, lmk if you want better sources.

goto11 7y ago
I'm just pointing out the biblical prohibitions against male-on-male sex is not a recent invention as the GP comment suggested. Of course people did it anyway.
- RaiseProfits 7y ago
  The bible prohibits many things that never really took root as social mores; I think the transition into society is super fascinating and arguably is an invention of sorts.

gumby 7y ago

Interesting that you chose a modern translation (1973). I just randomly scrolled to another (the orthodox jewish bible) and it says no such thing: "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..." So I don't think you can say "just to be clear" I am neither gay nor part of any religion so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I am interested in hermeneutic philosophy, translation, and, separately, the nature of disagreement.

goto11 7y ago
> "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..." What does that mean then?