Yes on (h)8

From chapter 10 of the old version of my book.



Sexuality has had its ups and down throughout human history. It’s akin to racism and female equality. There have been times where women were queens and then times where they were treated like slaves. There have been times when homosexuality wasn’t considered abnormal and times when people were killed for it. All but one of the roman emperors were bi sexual not to mention Alexander the Great, Issac Newton, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael… Remember the list of geniuses? It’s pretty funny that you’ll find a good percentage of them to be, or at least have homosexual tendencies. What does that say? Why are they so hated and feared? Reminds me of the x-men who tried to help a world that hated and feared them.

Da Vinci happened to live in a time when you could have been burned alive for sodomy charges. He was actually charged once but dropped for lack of evidence. What’s disheartening is in a world where equality is stressed, it can also be promoted openly!. We’re taught in school that everyone is equal, women, “African” Americans (Why aren’t they simply American? I’m not considered Italian American??) the mentally handicapped, - everyone right? Wrong, everyone but homosexuals. They are considered unequal in the eyes of the President of the United States; evident in his trying to change the constitution to specify “man and woman” which seems pretty discriminatory to me. Definitely has nothing to do with state as much as faith, which are suppose to be separate. I think.

I could go into the specifics of sexuality and morality to try and show why it’s anything but immoral but those who have those opinions won’t be swayed by anything I could write here. It doesn’t matter that the only place it says anything about homosexuality being wrong in the bible is in the same place where it says you’re not suppose to pick up sticks on a certain day, or interbreed live stock. Or that it says nothing about two women being together. So if you wanted to get technical lesbians are perfectly ok according to the bible. The only thing the bible says is

"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

Literally translated to;

“And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman, it is a moral sin (abomination)"

That verse could be taken many different ways. “Lay lyings of a woman” could mean that two men can’t lay together in a woman’s bed (lay lyings). That they can’t have sex like they would with a woman in a pagan temple ritual (what some infer from it’s context), or That they can’t have sex(lay) with other men. You have to consider it I the context of it’s time. The rest of the Chapter is talking about “uncovering the nakedness” of different people: what is ok and what is not. God is talking to Moses and telling him what is ok and what is not. He says things like

“Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.”

Basically giving the various rules of sexual conduct thousands of years ago. Don’t “undercover the nakedness” of your family. Interestingly Leviticus 18: 14 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother. You shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.” Which insinuates that it might be ok with other men besides your uncle, why else specifically specify only one male relative? It doesn’t say “you shall not uncover the nakedness of another man” but only specifies your uncle.

This is the only place in the bible where it says anything about homosexuality. What’s interesting to me, and “wrong” is what you might read in some current versions of the bible.

From the “living bible” "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

You can find that in the same place where “A man should not lay lyings with a man as he would a woman.” Is supposed to be. For some reason people think it’s perfectly ok to change what the original words were - to intentionally make it worse. That would be like me taking the verse before this one:

Leviticus 18, 21: “And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord!” Then I start rallies, protests, and get out of bed each day intent of censoring and punishing anyone and everyone who uses the lord’s name in vain. Or perhaps I could make a change to the constitution that specifies “Man and woman” no no, “Man and women who aren’t on their period” or go around burning people who have slept with their neighbor, anyone who’s taken a woman as a rival to her sister, and anyone who cheated with their brothers wife. Because all of those are in the same chapter, and equally “wrong.” (in the eyes of the lord, thy god)

My point is that you don’t see people protesting people who have let their decedents pass through the fire to molech. The rule before “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Which seems to be seriously miss-interpreted, miss-used, and sadly miss-understood.

What’s also interesting is that it’s those types of people who out of the entire bible choose to focus and hate and discriminate people based off one obscure verse. I just don’t understand why someone gets up in the morning and thinks – “hmm, I have nothing better to do with my life. Lets go protest homos!” Why people actively hate people is something I never want to understand, only prevent.

“Thou shall not murder” and “ an eye for an eye” are conflicting, but that’s ok. People will take a side or ignore it. They’ll also pick and choose what they choose to believe in, and what they choose to ignore about the bible. But when it comes to sexuality they choose to embrace the negative. In actuality, sleeping with a woman when she’s on her period is breaking the same set of rules as with a man. Yet that can be considered “out dated” or “but I’m horny, god will forgive us. We can use a towl” It’s amazing what people can justify when it comes to their own “sins” and what is held at Jesus’s standards for others. Hypocrisy is a double edged sword, it cuts those who use it, and are cut down with it.

I was one of those for much of my life; “Homosexuality is wrong” I had been told that growing up, at school, on tv, by my hypocritical father, and countless “Christians.” But as I grew up, I began to realize it’s really not that big of a deal. I don’t give a shit anymore.

There have been those who use the bible as the support for wearing white robes and hanging and harassing black people. And people who use it as the basis for their cults. The list goes on and on. I will say there are Christians who accept homosexuality as being ok but that only goes to show how everyone CHOOSES to accept what they believe in. It’s a belief not a fact. If you choose to hate someone for something they can not change you shouldn’t be able to call yourself “Christian” This is not to mention those who consider homosexuality to be “wrong” who are in no way moral in their own lives – as if they even understand what morality is. But still throw around words like immoral, wrong, unnatural, and such. Yet in their own lives thrive on hypocrisy.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

1.2.1 - Shone

Mohenjo Daro

Nothing's real until you let go completely.