They don’t. Most times, they are just hateful people. I’m sure there are some that are in the closet, but on the whole, they are just hateful. The opposite of what their god wants.
I’m specifically talking about politicians, though. There are a ton of super right wing gay hating politicians that have been caught sucking dick or something similar.
The sort of people who talk about homosexuality in terms of it being disgusting animalistic lust… because they’re ashamed of lusting after it, and think that it is just a part of everyone’s nature which they suppress.
I think there’s something to that. Like they get excited thinking about boy’s linuses, so they presume everyone else is also, and only so many people are gay, hence the deduction that homosexuality is a choice
I think the element of power plays into too - like how in Ancient Rome it was totally okay for a man to have sex with other men, as long as the higher status man was on top. They don’t view sex as an act between equals, they view it as an expression of power.
Leviticus’s condemnations of gay sex are rooted in that - it was common in Bronze Age warfare to rape enemy combatants as a way of humiliating and demasculinizing them.
Leviticus tells you to kill both involved and mentions nothing about war in either instance. It was specifically to go against consensual sex between males. Don’t apologize for the text, if the author had intended it to be stopping war rape it would have said that. The author was fine with war rape which is why it specifically tells the reader to take the girls you find in battle.
There is no god and the Bible is shit. Time to move on.
Not apologia - I have no investment in the beliefs of folks in a specific area from 1000-500 BCE, I just find them fascinating to study for obvious reasons. But Leviticus is a document written in a specific historical context - relationships are entirely man/property. Consenting to sex is not really a thing. Treating a man like a woman is defiling him, he is also now a thing defiled he must be destroyed to purify the community.
I also doubt that enforcement was even happening at the time the texts were written.
Like, the question of “what happens if a woman reaches out to break up a fight between two men, and she accidentally grabs some dudes ‘nads” is discussed at length. They are responding to specific concerns at a historical period which has very little in common with our own. The idea that “sex is supposed to be with someone you love and consider your equal” was as alien to them as it was to my ex 🗿
We also shouldn’t assume that the Bible is univocal - there are so many different authors/rewriters/compilers with different agendas writing in different time periods. This is why I brought up Leviticus and not Paul’s (and not-Paul’s) shit, because I don’t know enough Greek to argue about arsenokoitai lol.
Yeah I also heard that same episode of Data Over Dogma. Dan didn’t mention that Leviticus also tells you not to kill a girl that was raped and can force the rapist to marry her. Which means that so called defilement didn’t mean you killed everyone involved. Breaking his whole argument.
Maybe reword it a bit. He claims that the act of being penetration outside of marriage meant you were defiled which meant you were to be killed. And he points out that they did that to the animal and to the adulteress. The problem with that argument is they did not do it for the rape victim and in fact Leviticus specifically says not to. The argument doesn’t work and the contradiction is easy to spot.
Additionally no where do we even see a hint of a concept of gay marriage in the Bible. If the defilement argument held any water a marriage would fix it. No where do we even see a nod to the idea that can use boys for a certain purpose which yeah they were used for. If the defilement argument worked we should have seen it called out.
The simplest explaination is plain reading and the plain reading is if a MAN (not a boy an adult man) has sex with a MAN (not a boy an adult man) they are BOTH to be put to death.
I don’t subscribe in any way shape or form that the Bible is univocal. I am not even convinced that Mark alone had less than 4 authors. But on this one topic the Bible is consistent on.
Side-note I do think Paul literally did say that. He might not have written that letter but I think he did utter it. The man didn’t even approve of hetro sex within marriage no way he was cool with gay guys.
Don’t follow the Bible, don’t apologize for the Bible, don’t downplay what it says by contextualizing. It is a vile disgusting book and very blunt.
Deuteronomy discusses the rape of women. It is not covered in Leviticus.
Deuteronomy outlines several situations for what to be done when a women is sexually assaulted. A women who is pledged to someone but is raped is killed if she doesn’t not resist/“cry out,” because of the ancient world’s non-understanding of sexual coercion. If she resists it becomes a property crime. If she is unmarried she becomes property of the rapist.
A “plain reading” of a text that was written in a different language millennia ago which has gone through multiple translations is silly. The fact that there are multiple translations is in itself an indication that there’s ridiculous complexity in just rendering the text in English. Usually, when someone reads translations of primary texts, the book they’re published in is at least 50% context.
I like Dan McClellan’s work bringing scholarship to a mass entertainment platform, but I’ve only seen a few of his TikTok’s. I prefer getting my information from JSTOR. I don’t think that I’m “downplaying” the Bible by providing a context.
I’m curious which letters of Paul you would claim are authentic, and on what you would base your reconstruction of Paul’s ideas. (I’m enjoying Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery at the moment, I’d be happy to discuss what Paul did and didn’t write). Saying Paul didn’t approve of heterosexual sex within marriage is a very strange reading of the text - the verses you are referring to are saying that it is pointless to marry (the world is going to end very soon) unless you are just too horny to resist it. Many of Paul’s letters are known forgeries, with distinct theology.
And they usually end up being gay, too.
They don’t. Most times, they are just hateful people. I’m sure there are some that are in the closet, but on the whole, they are just hateful. The opposite of what their god wants.
I’m specifically talking about politicians, though. There are a ton of super right wing gay hating politicians that have been caught sucking dick or something similar.
The sort of people who talk about homosexuality in terms of it being disgusting animalistic lust… because they’re ashamed of lusting after it, and think that it is just a part of everyone’s nature which they suppress.
I think there’s something to that. Like they get excited thinking about boy’s linuses, so they presume everyone else is also, and only so many people are gay, hence the deduction that homosexuality is a choice
I think the element of power plays into too - like how in Ancient Rome it was totally okay for a man to have sex with other men, as long as the higher status man was on top. They don’t view sex as an act between equals, they view it as an expression of power.
Leviticus’s condemnations of gay sex are rooted in that - it was common in Bronze Age warfare to rape enemy combatants as a way of humiliating and demasculinizing them.
Leviticus tells you to kill both involved and mentions nothing about war in either instance. It was specifically to go against consensual sex between males. Don’t apologize for the text, if the author had intended it to be stopping war rape it would have said that. The author was fine with war rape which is why it specifically tells the reader to take the girls you find in battle.
There is no god and the Bible is shit. Time to move on.
Not apologia - I have no investment in the beliefs of folks in a specific area from 1000-500 BCE, I just find them fascinating to study for obvious reasons. But Leviticus is a document written in a specific historical context - relationships are entirely man/property. Consenting to sex is not really a thing. Treating a man like a woman is defiling him, he is also now a thing defiled he must be destroyed to purify the community.
I also doubt that enforcement was even happening at the time the texts were written.
Like, the question of “what happens if a woman reaches out to break up a fight between two men, and she accidentally grabs some dudes ‘nads” is discussed at length. They are responding to specific concerns at a historical period which has very little in common with our own. The idea that “sex is supposed to be with someone you love and consider your equal” was as alien to them as it was to my ex 🗿
We also shouldn’t assume that the Bible is univocal - there are so many different authors/rewriters/compilers with different agendas writing in different time periods. This is why I brought up Leviticus and not Paul’s (and not-Paul’s) shit, because I don’t know enough Greek to argue about arsenokoitai lol.
Yeah I also heard that same episode of Data Over Dogma. Dan didn’t mention that Leviticus also tells you not to kill a girl that was raped and can force the rapist to marry her. Which means that so called defilement didn’t mean you killed everyone involved. Breaking his whole argument.
Maybe reword it a bit. He claims that the act of being penetration outside of marriage meant you were defiled which meant you were to be killed. And he points out that they did that to the animal and to the adulteress. The problem with that argument is they did not do it for the rape victim and in fact Leviticus specifically says not to. The argument doesn’t work and the contradiction is easy to spot.
Additionally no where do we even see a hint of a concept of gay marriage in the Bible. If the defilement argument held any water a marriage would fix it. No where do we even see a nod to the idea that can use boys for a certain purpose which yeah they were used for. If the defilement argument worked we should have seen it called out.
The simplest explaination is plain reading and the plain reading is if a MAN (not a boy an adult man) has sex with a MAN (not a boy an adult man) they are BOTH to be put to death.
I don’t subscribe in any way shape or form that the Bible is univocal. I am not even convinced that Mark alone had less than 4 authors. But on this one topic the Bible is consistent on.
Side-note I do think Paul literally did say that. He might not have written that letter but I think he did utter it. The man didn’t even approve of hetro sex within marriage no way he was cool with gay guys.
Don’t follow the Bible, don’t apologize for the Bible, don’t downplay what it says by contextualizing. It is a vile disgusting book and very blunt.
Deuteronomy discusses the rape of women. It is not covered in Leviticus. Deuteronomy outlines several situations for what to be done when a women is sexually assaulted. A women who is pledged to someone but is raped is killed if she doesn’t not resist/“cry out,” because of the ancient world’s non-understanding of sexual coercion. If she resists it becomes a property crime. If she is unmarried she becomes property of the rapist.
A “plain reading” of a text that was written in a different language millennia ago which has gone through multiple translations is silly. The fact that there are multiple translations is in itself an indication that there’s ridiculous complexity in just rendering the text in English. Usually, when someone reads translations of primary texts, the book they’re published in is at least 50% context.
I like Dan McClellan’s work bringing scholarship to a mass entertainment platform, but I’ve only seen a few of his TikTok’s. I prefer getting my information from JSTOR. I don’t think that I’m “downplaying” the Bible by providing a context.
I’m curious which letters of Paul you would claim are authentic, and on what you would base your reconstruction of Paul’s ideas. (I’m enjoying Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery at the moment, I’d be happy to discuss what Paul did and didn’t write). Saying Paul didn’t approve of heterosexual sex within marriage is a very strange reading of the text - the verses you are referring to are saying that it is pointless to marry (the world is going to end very soon) unless you are just too horny to resist it. Many of Paul’s letters are known forgeries, with distinct theology.