After writing my little rant yesterday on the way certain individuals enjoy taking snippits from the book of Leviticus in order to legitimize their bigotry and tell us how to live our lives, I did a little more reading. Leviticus chapter 18 is all about sexual relations and immorality. It's where you can find the famous passage denouncing homosexuality. But if you read the actual text, you'll notice that it was very specific on just who it was talking about. Don't know what I'm talking about? I'll show you.
Leviticus 18:22: “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
See it yet? It says do not have sex with a MAN as one does with a woman. The person that wrote this was very obviously writing this law with men in mind. With that said, there is absolutely nothing wrong, per Leviticus, with women having sex with women.
I suppose this has a lot to do with the fact that, in that time period, it was normal for a man to have more than one wife. And since there's no law precluding a man having sex with more than one wife at a time (trust me, I looked), it wouldn't make sense to make it wrong for two women to have sex together. After all, what fun is a woman-man-woman threesome if the ladies can't play too?
And for those of you who would try to make the argument that the word "man" in that sentence meant "mankind", try re-reading that sentence. It is very obviously gender specific. If you still don't believe me, here's another law from the same chapter of Leviticus that pretty much proves that everything in there is gender specific.
Leviticus 18:23: “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
Here, the author was very specific by differentiating between a man and a woman. So with all that, it's fairly obvious that the law about homosexuality applies only to men. Which means, dear bigots, that if you're trying to shame gays and lesbians out of being what they are, you have failed.
Sadly, there was another omission in Leviticus that, frankly, disturbs me. While there are plenty of laws forbidding the act of sex with children within your family, be they blood or step children, there is nothing specifically prohibiting the act of sex with very youngchildren. While I understand that, at the time, many of the people were married and having children even into their early teens, there is still nothing in those laws that specifically prohibits having sex with very young children.
What's the point of all this study on Leviticus? The point, my friends, is that a person can't simply choose one or two laws from a portion of the bible, wave them in your face and say "See? See? The thing I detest is wrong according to the bible, so you can't do it!" and forget the rest even exist. And even if they did try to apply the whole of those laws to everyone, it's the height of hypocrisy for them to not apply those same laws to their own lives.
So for a person to insist on living per the laws set down in Leviticus, they would have to a) accept that there is no law forbidding lesbianism, and b) no law forbidding the act of sex with young children. If you don't believe it, look for yourself. Personally, I think it would be better if you just read my previous post, or better yet, the rest of your bible, and took those lessons to heart instead of desperately digging through scripture in an attempt to legitimize you bigotry.
Leviticus 18:22: “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
ReplyDeleteLet us think about this one.
Technically "a man" should bed "a woman" in order to procreate. This is the point after all, to procreate. So really, the only true manner of sexual relations would be to insert vaginally to achieve conception.
Now we all know that people like to explore, whether it is anally or orally, however the "appropriate" sexual relations that are not considered sinful or lewd, would be the vaginal approach.
So really, it is not possible for a man to "have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" because men are no equipped to receive in this manner. Perhaps this is splitting hairs, however if we consider how clearly the bible has been translated into that context, (key word is translated) it leaves a lot open for questioning.
Being a woman who does not particularly enjoy the anal approach, I could just be interpreting this in my own way (as everyone else does) and reading into it what I choose (Since God gave me the free will to do so) I would say that one, it is a ridiculous statement. 2, It is impossible for a man to have sexual relations with another man as they would a woman, because it is impossible. 3, it says nothing about having sexual relations with a man in any other form.
Besides, God gave us the free will to love who we want. The interpretations of MEN through the centuries as they retell the bible and what they understood from it (with no respect for information that got lost in translation)should be taken as that. INTERPRETATIONS. And they should not tell a person who they should and should not love.