Somewhat ironically- the only remotely credible argument to validate Leviticus and its supposed ideas on homosexuality invalidate the argument as well. Some say that many Christians cherry pick the Old Testament- they keep what they like and hand wave away what they dont by saying the New Testament is law. Leviticus forbids the eating of shellfish (It’s ok... Jesus made unclean food clean in the NT...) or selling daughters into slavery and stoning people to death (no no. Jesus abolished all that in the NT and separated secular law and religious law so those don’t apply...) same for animal sacrifices and certain worship practices (Jesus made his body the temple by his sacrifice...) and somehow in all that he also made it ok to touch pig skin and wear mixed fabric too! Just... not the gay stuff apparently? But here’s where the problems start....
... even if we ignore the fact that the words “homosexual” and it’s variants didn’t appear in pre 1940’s English bibles.... and we rule out all other contextual information such as prostitution and the like.... it’s still hypocritical. The Christian Bible doesn’t rank sin. One sin of a type is as bad as any other. Matters of JUDICIAL prudence are said to be put into the hands of secular law under the “universal church of Christ” by the laws of the land... but for the idea that homosexuality is wrong to be valid- that requires the argument that sexual morality still be in place from the OT. But the OT doesn’t mention homosexuality as clearly or as often as it mentions same sex anal, pre marital sex, pretty much 90% of non vanilla sex with a spouse, even having sex after divorce is taboo- not to mention divorce itself being largely taboo.
So.... what we also have as a resounding message throughout the books of the Bible is that one can’t throw stones from a glass house. That one can’t have their garden a mess and tell their neighbor how to clean theirs up. Who was it that said: “let he is without sin cast the first stone”....? By the standards laid out in the OT, very few people are not guilty of sexual immorality- of which they are ongoing and or unrepentant. NT to mention other OT morality. It’s up to an individual to decide wether they think homosexuality is a sin or not- although I’d say the biblical basis for that is weak, and the real world effects in a non fundamentalist religious government are largely irrelevant since it is a personal opinion and secular government doesn’t run based off personal religious interpretations- and one which promises freedom certainly doesn’t use such religious morality to dictate law... but that said...
... people gotta decide for themselves, but there is literally not only a biblical and philosophical basis to not rally against homosexuals, there’s also the hypocritical element that few if any can say they aren’t guilty of sexual sin themselves, so they should likely work on their personal relationship with their god before they try and get involved in someone else’s.
Also isn't there a passage in the Bible about how this guy loved some other guy so much? Now I know it's probably meant as like really good friends but IDK, wouldn't be the first time the Bible said contradictory things. Anyway yes I agree, don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.
I also want to mention one thing: why do Christians who rally against homosexuality always seem so caught up on the sex? There's so much more to a relationship but they always go "but they do it in the butt! Sin!!!" You can have a meaningful relationship without fucking like rabbits, and I would've thought the people who keep talking about purity and restraint would understand that part. But I suppose people who wait until marriage have slightly different priorities since they are willing to involve the government in their relationship just so they can bang.
It is a bit odd isn’t it? If two men live together alone in the same house, adopt a child together, hang out all the time, share their dreams and secrets, financially support each other, love each other... that’s all fine. In fact- most of it is encouraged or at least condoned. Two men may kiss, even on the mouth to show affection. This is and was common throughout a very Catholic Europe. Buuut... well... butt. I suppose there’s a case to be made that butt stuff is off limits without regards to gender, but that’s a little self defeating since unless you have explicit confirmation a couple engaged in butt stuff- you don’t actually know they did and secondly- “a man should not lay with a man as he does a woman...” well... its not like with a woman. (Biological non altered) Women don’t have wieners, and can’t do butt stuff supposedly. Also- how do we know that passage isn’t referring to who has to be the “little spoon”? Maybe the Bible is ok with homosexuality if spooning isn’t involved?
All in all it seems rather weird that
1. A whole group of religiously pious people spend ALOT of time thinking about how other people fuck
And
2. An entire major religions views on accepting homosexuality are a giant “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.
I also want to mention one thing: why do Christians who rally against homosexuality always seem so caught up on the sex? There's so much more to a relationship but they always go "but they do it in the butt! Sin!!!" You can have a meaningful relationship without fucking like rabbits, and I would've thought the people who keep talking about purity and restraint would understand that part. But I suppose people who wait until marriage have slightly different priorities since they are willing to involve the government in their relationship just so they can bang.
1. A whole group of religiously pious people spend ALOT of time thinking about how other people fuck
And
2. An entire major religions views on accepting homosexuality are a giant “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.