Why we continue to be victims…
Matt: The Sodom and Gomorrah story is clearly talking about rape when the men of the city come aggressively to Lot’s home.
Other Person: But they didn’t want to have sex with the same sex, but with another species.
Matt: Wrong… the angels looked like men. The men of Sodom had no knowledge that they were angels. Lot didn’t either until the angels told him.
Other Person: Well, that Hebrew word only means “to know”
Matt: Yes, literally, it means that, but in the context of the story it does not mean “to know.”
Other Person: No, that Hebrew word means “to know.”
Matt: No, it doesn’t mean “to know” contextually in that story. It means “to have sex with” or “to know carnally.”
Other Person: But it could mean “to know.”
Matt: But it doesn’t, not in that instance. We know it doesn’t mean that.
Other Person: But it could.
Matt: Really, the men of Sodom just wanted to chat with the angels? Really?
Other Person: It could. You know, everyone interprets the Bible differently.
————-
This, my friends, is (one of many reasons) why gay people continue to be victims.
About the Author: Matt
14 Responses to “Why we continue to be victims…”
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.
I grant you that this person seems rather naive when it comes to Biblical interpretation, but I’m not sure how that relates to the continuation of gay victimhood.
By Jarred on Feb 15, 2008
You left out the part about how Lot offered to let the people “know” his daughters. (Genesis 19:8).
File that under “traditional family values” (right next to “Take thine only son Isaac…”) (Genesis 22:2).
By KipEsquire on Feb 15, 2008
Jarred… A person can continue to put him or herself in a place of victimhood by not knowing how to defend themselves, especially on such an easily interpret-able passage.
Kip… in a parallel story in the Old Testament book of Judges, only one daughter is given. Unlike the Sodom story, the men of Gibea actually do take the girl and rape her until she dies. The father takes his dead daughter’s body and cuts it into 12 parts, sending each piece to the 12 tribes of Israel. Each of the tribes join together to amass a great army that wipes Gibea off the face of the world.
You know, I never knew about that story until last night. It is funny how my childhood church focused so much on the very similar story that just happened to be more same-sex related, in their minds at least.
By Matt on Feb 15, 2008
Matt,
I guess my question is what is meant by “being a victim” in this post and your follow-comment?
To be honest, this is one of those areas where I’m inclined to disagree with gay Christians. For the most part, gay Christians seem to think that protecting our rights hinges on convincing their fellow Christians that being gay is not a sin condemned in a Bible. As a non-Christian, I disagree with that assessment completely. In order to protect my rights, I don’t need to explain away the “clobber passages.” I merely need to effectively argue that regardless of how one interprests those “clobber passages,” the interpretation chosen still doesn’t give that person the right to violate my human rights.
Now, if you’re instead talking about being a victim in terms of being excluded from some parts of the Christian church, I can see your point there.
Oh, and as an aside, my old college OT professor once had us read the passage in Judges you’re talking about. She pointed out that nothing in the passage actually indicates the young lady was dead when her father cut her into twelve parts. Which is a scary thought.
By Jarred on Feb 15, 2008
Jarred - biblical ignorance among gay people is a bad idea because, like it or not, the debate does hinge in many people’s minds on whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
Frankly, it’s a heck of a lot easier to debunk the common misinterpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story than it is to tell those Americans, who vastly outnumber us, that they should leave their faith at home. That will never happen, and we have no solid argument with which to say it should - but we do have a good argument that Christians are misusing something they value very highly, in a way that hurts the church, and by driving His children away, offends their God.
In this debate, it isn’t about what makes us feel good to say - it’s about what works to convince them.
By Casey on Feb 15, 2008
Casey,
We don’t need to argue that anti-gay Christians should leave their religion at home. We merely need to point out that the First Amendment prohibits them from establishing their religious beliefs as a governing force over the rest of us.
Quite frankly, I think the propensity to allow those in charge to continue to frame the question of gay rights in terms of what the Bible says is okay is one of the greatest failure of some portions of our movement. Furthermore, it leaves the opposition’s number one weapon fully intact to use against whatever group they choose to discriminate against after they finally lose the gay rights argument.
By Jarred on Feb 17, 2008
Jarred… The Religious Right will not back down. They are, from their point of view, speaking for and from God’s perspective on these issues. It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says — this is about God’s law, not man’s. God’s law will always trump what man says and does. That is why the gay=sin issue is such an important one.
By Matt on Feb 17, 2008
If that is true, then those of us who are not Christians (or even just not “Christian enough”) will forever be the potential victims for discrimination by the religious right, no matter how this particular matter is resolved.
By Jarred on Feb 17, 2008
Jarred,
The Constitution’s first amendment doctrine governs state action - it has no power whatsoever over how private individuals choose to vote, and the establishment clause does not save us, either - in order to pass laws restricting the rights of GLBT Americans (or refuse to pass laws in favor of us) all the state has to show is that there is a rational basis for the legislature’s choice, which is a very, very low bar. Even if the level of scrutiny for these laws was higher, protecting public safety and morals has been a legitimate government purpose since the founding of the nation, and neither of those are going anywhere.
Since private citizens will continue to vote with their faith in mind, and the first amendment doesn’t help us in terms of gay/trans legislation, we need to be able to speak to what matters to voters, and that means engaging the religious debate in a way that, at the very least, shows that we have considered the question and understand where the opposition comes from. We may never change their theology, but the simple fact that they see us caring about what they care about, and speaking the same language, helps to change hearts and minds. When they see us as humans with similar values and dreams, they are less motivated to vote to harm us, and we win.
By Casey on Feb 17, 2008
Belief cannot argue with unbelief; it can only preach to it. All of the time and energy some glbt folks put into trying to explain away the various positions on homosexual activity found in the books making up “the Bible” would be better spent, perhaps, on working in the public square to show that granting or withholding civil rights from an individual just because of their adult/consensual sexual practices is not a good way to go. Let people of good faith believe that homosexual acts are sinful; that’s okay. But let’s not determine “citizenship” based on notions of what’s a sin and what’s not.
By Rev. David R. Gillespie on Feb 18, 2008
As a person, to have a very basic (if partial) part of my humanity called sinful, depraved, and harmful is offensive and problematic.
As a community member, it gives license to prejudice, hostility, and outright violence.
And as a Christian, to allow what God has created good to be called evil is indefensible.
By Brian on Feb 18, 2008
I agree with Brian, to be told that what i am doing is wrong when it isn’t, and to see people throwing themselves completely into a fact that is untrue, causes both a personal, and moral dilema for me.
I, for one, can not sit aside allowing people to use a weapon they obviously do not understand, if we were to use somthing like that, they would obviously have an issue with it.
By Teal-Rose on Feb 21, 2008
The article aside, I think there is something to be said for why we continue to be victims. And I know this is going to piss off a lot of people, and seem over generalized, but this is what I see, as a gay man who has been out since he was 15.
I see no interest in ‘looking out for each other’ at least when it involves gay men. I see a lot of gay men downtown who walk right past each other and rather than acknowledge each other, have this ‘who do you think YOU are?’ attitude. How on earth can we expect the government or straight people to accept us, pass laws for us, etc when so many of us loathe each other, and for no real reason? Are we angry because the amount of gay men ‘out there’ isn’t what we thought and we resent each other? Is it because nobody is anybody’s ‘type’ and so many gay guys are looking for a straight guy who might someday be gay? We are the only minority group I know of who loves to exclude each other - we can’t even live in gay neighborhoods unless we have a very high income today. Years ago, gay and lesbian communities often lived in low rent, eclectic neighborhoods that were sanctuaries in their own right. Today, you’re looking at half a million for a condo or $1000 for a studio apartment (this is Minneapolis!). I think we forgot to include each other when seeking gay friendly communities. Sure, straigh people are gay friendly, but are gays friendly with each other? I’m not seeing it. Unless we get working on how to include rather than isolate and polarize this community, I have very little faith in things gettng better.
By DuluthJon on Feb 23, 2008
DuluthJon, I think you raise many good points about circumstances within the LGBT community, specifically the community of gay men. On the other hand, however, I think you will find participation by and inclusion of all parts of the LGBT community in many of our organizations. Some organizations don’t necessarily reflect the best in our community at all times, but many do.
By Matt on Feb 24, 2008