[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Columnist: God and Sex

[michael at intrafi.com]

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

SIDEWAYS - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

An official selection of the New York Film Festival and the
Toronto International Film Festival, SIDEWAYS is the new
comedy from Alexander Payne, director of ELECTION and ABOUT
SCHMIDT.  Starring Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church,
Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Watch the trailer at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


Op-Ed Columnist: God and Sex

October 23, 2004
 By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF 



 

So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in
love with each other, did he goof? 

That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage
on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the
only state where the outcome seems uncertain. 

Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the
question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social
liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments,
but that is the ground on which political battles are often
decided in America - as when a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma"
Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80
years ago, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus
Christ, it's good enough for us." 

I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that
God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as
likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also
think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious
field. 

Some scholars, like Daniel Helminiak, author of "What the
Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," argue that the
Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that. 

It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern
scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality,
rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male
strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be
handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead.
After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As
Mark Jordan notes in "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian
Theology," it was only in the 11th century that theologians
began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy. 

In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when
you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to
offer up your virgin daughters. 

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct
that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex
(scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing
encompasses other sexual contact). While homosexuality
never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain
reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is
every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns,
like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus
19:19). 

As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about
gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give
away all his assets and arguably warned against bank
accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on
earth"). 

Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs
for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians
rarely lead the way with self-castration. 

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to
encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as
episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can
be read as describing gay affairs between David and
Jonathan. 

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus
cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some
scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were
lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch. 

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament
that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in
Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time
explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible
has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex. 

A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in
"unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex,
according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a
fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward
lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to
sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive
during sex. 

In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver?
Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil
themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President
Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by
veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move
on to barring gay marriages.) 

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would
be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not
good for the human to be alone," and allow gay lovers to
marry. 

Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage
except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to
remain unmarried as I am." So if we're going to cherry-pick
biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love,
then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ex=1099555285&ei=1&en=b06cf6eb7dc484d7


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company