MORE DETAILS |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Summary of this page
A Fairy Tale of No Harm
Some time ago in a land far away, an old King said to his
handsome young son, the Prince, “My boy, you’re now 21
and it’s time you got married.”
So the Prince saddled his trusty horse and rode to the cities
of neighboring countries seeking a suitable partner.
A few months later he returned home, unsaddled his horse
and took his prospective partner to meet his father.
The King was horrified. “You can’t marry another Prince!”
he cried. “You can only marry a Princess.”
“But we love each other!” exclaimed the Prince. “Why can’t
we marry?”
“Because it’s wrong,” said the King. “If you marry, you’ll
have sex and the Bible says that men having sex with other
men is a no-no.”
“But the Bible also says that slavery is okay,” retorted the
Prince. “And yet we don’t allow slavery in our Kingdom.”
“That’s because it’s harmful to the slaves,” said the King.
“If we don’t have slaves because it’s harmful, then we should
judge sex between men in the same way,” claimed the
Prince. “If it’s done with caring love and no harm to either
man, then it’s not harmful and it’s okay.”
He continued “And my lover and I will make sure we don’t
harm each other in any way.”
After thinking about it overnight, the King conceded that the
Prince was right. “You have my blessing,“ he said. “The
marriage will be next month.”
“Thanks, dad,” smiled the Prince.
[The significance of this fairy tale is shown under]
OVERVIEW OF THIS PAGE
Male-male penetration (anal sex) is okay if no direct or
indirect harm is caused.
SEX AND SLAVERY
The Biblical arguments now used to condemn male-male
penetration are the same types of arguments as those used
in the past to justify slavery. In fact the authors (Moses and
Paul) of the Biblical books which condemn or criticize male-
male penetration* also say that owning slaves is okay**.
Therefore people who argue that male-male penetration is
bad because the Bible says so and what the Bible says is
true, those people must recognize that the Bible also says
that owning slaves is okay. If they don’t agree with slavery,
they can’t condemn male-male penetration just on the basis
of the Biblical condemnation or criticism of such sex.
*Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26-7, 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim I:10
**Lev 25:44–46 and 1 Cor 7:21, Eph 6:5, I Tim 6:1
Main pro- and anti-slavery arguments
BIBLICAL NO-HARM TEST
The Bible provides a test to decide whether male-male
penetration is good or bad. It is the no-harm test i.e., if you
love (act for the welfare of) your neighbor, including not
harming your neighbor, you then fulfill (meet all the
requirements of) the Old Testament commandments
(Romans 13:8-10).
Your neighbor is any person you come into contact with. In
a sexual relations context, your neighbor means the person
you are having sex with and any third party, e.g. the partner
of that person.
The no-harm test is validated by the Golden Rule, i.e. Treat
people the same way you want them to treat you (Matthew 7:
12 and Luke 6:31). If you do this, you will not harm others.
The Old Testament law is based on this Rule (Matthew 7:12).
Even though a man’s penetrating actions contravene the
non-penetration command (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) and
its cultural bases (the main purpose of sex is to have
children, and men should not act like women when having
sex), the actions still meet the underlying and continuing
requirements of the command, i.e. no harm to the
participants or to the community (except for its cultural
basis). So, if a man does not harm himself, the other man or
any third party (e.g., a partner), then male-male penetration
is okay.
If there is no harm (physical, emotional, mental or relational),
the no male-male penetration texts can be set aside or
ignored; just as the pro-slavery texts have been set aside
and ignored because slavery harms people.
As the New Testament criticisms of male-male penetration
(Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) are
based on the Old Testament non-penetration command, the
New Testament criticisms can also be set aside.
Some people might argue that this test is illogical because it
allows clear biblical requirements to be ignored. However
the same test was used by Jesus in relation to working on
the Sabbath. One of the 10 Commandments says that
people shall not do any work on every 7th day (the Sabbath)
1. However Jesus healed sick people and picked grain
(which counted as work) on the Sabbath. He set aside and
ignored the Sabbath commandment because no harm was
done 2. Similarly he declared all foods clean (contrary to the
Old Testament law) again because no harm was done 3.
These actions of Jesus validate the use of the test. (Note
that in each case the command still exists – Jesus said that
he did not come to change the Old Testament law 4 – it’s
just that we don’t always need to follow it if no harm is done.
This applies to other commands also, e.g. those covering
not planting mixed crops 5 and not charging interest on
loans 6.)
1 Exodus 20:8-11 2 Matthew 12:1-14 Luke 13:10-16
3 Mark 7:18-19 4 Matthew 5:17-20
5 Leviticus 19:19 6 Exodus 22:25 Leviticus 25:36,37
The no-harm test applies also to male-female penetration
(straight sex) and non-sexual activities too.
Some people might argue that incest would be allowed by
using this test. But this wouldn’t be so because incest
causes harm. In Old Testament times, a woman (mother,
daughter, etc) was considered to be the property of a man
(father, uncle, etc). Therefore a man having incestuous sex
with her would be defiling someone else’s property. While
these property views are not held today, harm would still be
caused by sexualizing the relationships of the family
members (emotional or physical abuse) or if inbreeding
leading to birth defects results.
We don’t know why the Biblical no-harm test was not applied
in Paul’s time to the no male-male penetration texts and the
pro-slavery texts other than to say that it would not have
been practicable to allow male-male penetration or to stop
slavery in the culture of the day or for some time after. It
was finally possible to stop most slavery in the 19th Century
and the attitude to male-male penetration is currently slowly
changing.
Therefore despite the Biblical prohibition and criticisms, if a
man wishes to indulge in penetration (anal intercourse) with
another man, he can do so with a clear conscience provided
that he does not harm himself, the other man or any third
party (e.g. a partner), physically, emotionally, mentally or
relationally, directly or indirectly.
The Love Commandments
There are 2 Love Commandments.
1. Love God totally.
2. Love other people as you love yourself.
These commandments were first stated in the Old
Testament:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your being and with all your strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5)
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)
These commandments were repeated by Jesus:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
being and with all your mind and with all your strength [and]
love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:37-9, Mark 12:
30-1, Luke 10:27)
Here love means self-giving or selfless love, which seeks the
other person’s welfare.
How do you love God? Jesus (who was God in human
form) gave the answer as If you love me, you will keep my
commandments (John 14:15; compare 14:21 & 15:10).
Jesus said that on the commandments to love God and your
neighbor depend (or hang) the whole Old Testament Law
and the Prophets (Matthew 22:40). Paul later adds that the
person who loves his or her neighbor has fulfilled (or carried
out) the Old Testament law (Romans 13:8 & Galatians 5:
14). Therefore loving your neighbor as yourself can result
in you keeping the entire Old Testament law.
And how do you love (act for the welfare of) your
neighbor as yourself? By not harming your neighbor
(Romans 13:10). In practice you would only do to other
people what you would want them to do to you. This would
include both you and the other person fully consenting to
what is done or proposed, and treating each other fairly. It
would also avoid deception, force and injury.
As Joe Orton (a gay British author) said, You must do
whatever you like, as long as you enjoy it and don’t hurt
anyone else, that’s all that matters.
In legal terms, you must take reasonable care to avoid acts
or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be
likely to injure your neighbor. (Lord Atkin, Donoghue v
Stevenson).
And who is your neighbor? Any person you come into
contact with (See the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke
10:29-37). In a sexual relations context, your neighbor
means the person you are having sex with and any third
party, e.g. the partner of that person.
The Golden Rule
You follow the Golden Rule for living by doing to others what
you would want them to do to you. Jesus expressed this as
Treat people the same way you want them to treat you
(Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). This would include treating
other people with kindness and honor and not harming
them. Similar expressions were stated by Confucius,
Aristotle, Socrates, the Jewish Talmud (Shabbat 31a) and J
S Mill. The Golden Rule sums up, and is the basis of, the
Old Testament Law and Prophets (Matthew 7:12).
Following this Rule helps to ensure that no harm is done to
other people.
No sex outside marriage
Some people claim that the Bible allows sexual intercourse
only within a male-female marriage.
Reasons why the view of “no sex outside male-female
marriage” can be ignored
- The Bible presents male-female marriage as the usual
pattern and implies that this is the best place for sex.
But the Bible nowhere says that all sex outside male-
female marriage is wrong. It simply says that certain
kinds of sexual intercourse (incest, adultery, bestiality,
prostitution and male-male sex) are wrong *.
- The Creation story explains why men and women get
married and have sex (Genesis 1:28 and 2:24). The
story does not state or imply that marriage is
compulsory, or that all sex must be between males
and females, or that all sex outside male-female
marriage is wrong.
- In Jesus’ comments on divorce in Matthew 19:4-6, he
quoted the Creation story simply to show that male-
female marriage should be permanent. He did not
state or imply that sexual intercourse should be
restricted to male-female marriage only.
- It seems likely that the early church (including Peter
and Paul) thought that sexual immorality (porneia)
comprised those sexual activities prohibited in the Old
Testament. But the many references to sexual
immorality in the Bible still make perfect sense if they
are restricted to incest, adultery, bestiality, and/or
prostitution. Note that the Bible does not prohibit a
sexual relationship between an unmarried man and an
unmarried woman except where incest is involved.
- * Bible references are:
Incest Leviticus 18:6-18; 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21
Adultery Exodus 20:14 Leviticus 18:20; 20:10
Bestiality Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16
Prostitution 1 Corinthians 6:15-16
Male-male sex Leviticus 18: 22; 20:13 Romans 1:26-27 1
Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:10
Male-male penetration, slavery and culture
Some people say that the Bible’s acceptance of slavery
does not apply to all cultures at all times because slavery
was part of the Israelite economic culture. In contrast, they
say that the Biblical prohibition and criticism of male-male
penetration is not restricted to the Israelite culture and
applies to all cultures at all times.
However the following careful examination shows that the
Biblical prohibition and criticism of male-male penetration
was mainly made for cultural reasons.
How do we know whether a Bible prohibition or attitude is
cultural or transcultural?
- If the religious or practical reasons for a Bible
prohibition or attitude are different today from the
reasons in Bible times, then the prohibition or attitude
is cultural. If the reasons today are the same or
similar to those in Bible times, then the prohibition or
attitude is transcultural.
- For example, the Bible accepted slavery for the
practical reason that slaves overcame labor
shortages. As this reason is not thought valid today,
the Biblical acceptance of slavery is cultural.
- On the other hand, the Biblical prohibition of incest
was made for the practical reasons of having stable
families and societies, avoiding inbreeding and
resulting birth defects, avoiding provoking family
feuds, avoiding concentrating lands and riches in the
hands of a few families, and ensuring clarity in
parenthood and inheritance. These reasons
generally still hold today and so the incest prohibition
is transcultural.
Reasons why the Biblical prohibition and criticism of male-
male penetration is cultural and not transcultural:
- One practical reason for the Biblical prohibition of
male-male penetration was to prevent this being an
alternative to male-female penetration, thus
encouraging more babies being conceived. As this
view is not commonly held today, the Biblical
prohibition of male-male penetration is cultural.
- One religious/ social reason for the Biblical prohibition
of male-male penetration was the view that God made
men to penetrate in sex and women to be penetrated.
Therefore for a man to be sexually penetrated meant
that he was acting like a woman and this was wrong
and shameful. This view underlies the Leviticus
prohibition (Do not lie with a male as a woman would),
the Romans criticism (males acted shamefully with
males) and the Corinthians criticism (males who have
sex with males). A similar view on gender roles was
held in the cultures of the Ancient Near East, Greece
and Rome. Although this view is still held in some
societies today, it is not held in others. This variation
reinforces the conclusion that the Biblical prohibition
of male-male penetration is cultural.
- A further religious reason for the Biblical prohibition of
male-male penetration was the practice of males
having sex with male temple prostitutes. Because this
does not happen today, the Biblical prohibition of
male-male penetration is cultural.
- Another reason for the Biblical prohibition of male-
male penetration was its link with men exercising their
power over others, including their raping of male
strangers (as attempted in Sodom) and the raping of
male prisoners of war to humiliate them. This linkage
was also made in the cultures of the Ancient Near
East, Greece and Rome. Today such actions are rare
and a link with consenting male-male penetration
(consenting gay sex) is usually not made. Again, this
reinforces the conclusion that the Biblical prohibition
of male-male penetration is cultural.
- Note that the prohibition of male-male penetration in
Leviticus 18 comes immediately after another cultural
prohibition, i.e. on offering one’s seed (semen or
children) to the god Molech.
Practical effect of the Bible provisions being cultural
Theological doctrines and ethical rules cannot be based on
Biblical texts whose rationales and plausibility are based on
cultural perceptions, values, and worldviews no longer held
or considered valid *.
* John H. Elliott, No kingdom of God for softies? or, what was Paul
really saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in context, Biblical Theology
Bulletin Spring 2004
Churches changed their attitude to slavery in the 18th and
19th centuries partly on the basis that the Bible’s
acceptance of slavery was cultural and partly on the basis of
the commands to love (care for) one’s neighbor as oneself
and to treat others as you wish them to treat you. The
principle of caring for others is stronger than the principle of
owning others.
Similarly, churches (and other people) can change their
attitude to male-male penetration partly on the basis that the
Bible’s prohibition was cultural and partly on the basis that
no harm is done if the men act with love and care. The no-
harm test is stronger than the principle that men should act
like real men.
|