Interpretation

Last week was the first week of school and as the morning portion of my route wasn't running yet, I had the opportunity to cover the morning portion of a sick driver's route. Towards the middle of the week, they had a new driver ride along with me because he will be driving the route next week, and they wanted to give him an idea about how the route works.

Anyway, there was a portion of the route where we had about 45 minutes of downtime and we did a little bit of chatting. I had told him that I am gay in conversation (no, it wasn't something I just threw out there, hoping he is, too). He told me that he is a very religious person and he believes that being gay is wrong and his argument, as is so often the case, was that in Romans it says "And I quote" (he actually said that) "that a man shall not lie with another man and a woman shall not lie with another woman." Unfortunately, I didn't have a Bible with me so I couldn't prove him wrong, but I told him "Actually it doesn't say that." He didn't believe me, but I looked it up later and I was right.

Here is what it does say in Romans 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Now, it doesn't take a Biblical expert to see that nowhere in those verses does it say what that new driver claimed. As I read it, I just see a description of what was done and an assertion that such actions are shameful. Any guy who has ever masturbated (and maybe some women, too) will tell you that they felt ashamed after doing it. Does that make it wrong?

I have a feeling that when people call being gay "unnatural" they are probably referring to these verses. The word "natural" appears three times, twice in a positive way and once as a negative. But there are documented cases in nature where animals have gay sex - and let's be honest, there are some instances where gay sex often looks like a couple of animals going at it... But I digress...

It doesn't even say that the women had sex with other women! It just says they gave up "natural relations" for "unnatural relations" but it doesn't specifically say that the latter ones were with other women. Maybe they fell in love with unicorns. And then all the people went out and slaughtered them and that's why we don't have unicorns any more.

Now I will admit that the case of gay men in the passage appears pretty damning. It calls what they did "indecent" but frankly, isn't that just a judgment call? It doesn't even say in there that God was pissed they were doing it. It just says that what they were doing was indecent, shameful and unnatural. But those three words are human concepts. Those are human emotions, written by a human; specifically written by a man. I'm sure many women out there would agree with me that men make mistakes.

I also find it interesting that there is a footnote in the Bible where I found this passage. The Bible I used is the NIV study Bible that I got in college. 3/4 of the page is actual Biblical text and the other 1/4 is filled with interpretations by the publishers.

Here is what the publishers say about those two verses: "Homosexual practice is sinful in God's eyes. The Old Testament also condemns the practice (see Leviticus 18:22)." I'm not even going to go into the whole Leviticus debate because it's been done over and over. We've all heard the verses that condemn touching pigskin (so no football), wearing clothing of mixed fabric (so no cotton/polyester blends) and shellfish (NO MORE SHRIMP!) many times over. Aside from that, Christians believe that when Jesus died on the cross, he was throwing away those Old Testament laws (except for the 10 commandments) which is why the rules of Leviticus don't apply to Christians (except, I guess, for the practice of homosexuality).

But I take issue with the footnote interpretation that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God. They claim that these verses prove that God hates fags, but I just don't see the evidence! It doesn't say that in the text. It doesn't even say that in the verses that follow. Oddly, it says in the beginning that God gave them over to shameful lusts, which might be proof that God actually made us gay... I'm just saying.

Those footnotes are an interpretation and nothing more! They are the views the the publishers of the NIV study Bible came away with while reading the texts. Does that make them right? Does that make them gospel truth?

Do you remember the movie Goonies? I am probably the only person in the world who will ever compare the Bible to the movie Goonies, but yeah, what the hell; I'm going there. At the beginning of the movie, Mikey's mom comes home with that Hispanic woman and tells the kids that she is going to help them pack up. Then she asks Mouth (the Corey Feldman character) to interpret her instructions in Spanish for the Hispanic woman. As they goes through the house, Mouth misinterprets the instructions for his own shits and giggles. None of the other characters even know he is doing it - just the audience is in on the joke thanks to the humorous subtitles.

My point is that Mouth had an agenda and he purposely misinterpreted what was said for the Hispanic woman and that poor woman came away with some very frightening perceptions of what went on in that household.

I think the same thing is true with the Bible. Certain people interpret the texts and put their texts right there on the page, quite possibly in an attempt to fool people into thinking that those interpretations are also the words of God when in reality they are the product of an agenda. It's the same thing that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin always do - they throw out their interpretations of social issues in a way that makes it look like what they are saying is the Fundamental Truth. Don't believe me? Glenn Beck has the balls to claim that he is the voice of God. I kid you not! He actually claims to be the vessel through which God apparently wants to voice ignorance and hatred and fear.

I just wish that we could have subtitles when people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are speaking, just so that the people who actually listen to them would be able to see what they are really saying.

Is it a sin?

I am currently reading a fantastic book right now. Usually, when I blog about something like that, I like to have finished the book before I discuss it. But I just finished reading a section that has really got me thinking and when I am thinking about something in this way, I have to write about it. It's just how I roll!

So first, let me explain about the book, then I'll get into what I just read...and thus, why I feel the need to write about it.

Thinking Straight is the second novel by Robin Reardon. I haven't read the first one yet, but I definitely plan to soon. Thinking Straight is about a gay teen named Taylor who, soon after finding the perfect boyfriend in another teen named Will, comes out to his parents. Naturally, his devoutly religious parents panic and send him to a Christian program called Straight to God. Taylor is told that he'll be forced to stay there until he is able to change his gay feelings.

When he first arrives at Straight to God, he is understandably angry. They thrust him into this invironment by calling his gay feelings sins from which he must be purged. To start the program, he is given a yellow sticker and told that for the first several days he'll be in "SafeZone" meaning that he cannot talk. The sticker will tell everyone else that he's in SafeZone so they won't try to make him talk.

Though it is clear that many people at Straight to God favor the belief that homosexuality is a sin from which the sinners must be purged, Taylor soon meets people within the program who have a different perspective.

Okay, I need to stop here because I'll start giving too much away and, frankly, if you're reading this, then I want you to consider reading Thinking Straight. I'll now talk about the segment of the book that has prompted me to start writing and hopefully give nothing more of the plot away.

There is discussion in the book about homosexuality as a sin. As a homosexual myself, I have struggled with the concept. My brother, who is a strong supporter of who I am, believes that being gay is not a sin, however acting on my sexual desires IS a sin. Even so, everyone is a sinner, so even though I may end up having sex with another man, I'm not any worse than a person who, for example, lies.

The people most vehemently against sexuality would argue that if I "choose" to be in a relationship with another man, and therefore have sex with him, then I am "choosing" to live in sin. That word "choose" is another one of those hot topics. Obviously, I don't choose to be gay. Trust me on this. Ellen Degeneres once asked Why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would someone choose the persecution and hatred of people? Why indeed? Believe me, had I actually had the choice, I would have had a thing for women so I could marry a nice girl and provide my parents with some awesome grandchildren.

This wasn't my choice, though. I am sexually attracted to men. Since I can't speak for straight people, I have to wonder if their attraction to the opposite sex is a choice. Did they choose to find it difficult to speak when around a member of the opposite sex? Did they find themselves choosing to have those natural desires about that person?

Ah, there's another word: "natural". You see, being gay is "unnatural", or so say the people against it. Another word is "normal". Personally, I have come to believe that normal is merely a setting on the washing machine. Anyway, what is "normal" exactly? Brown hair? Blond hair? Blue eyes? Brown eyes? Straight? Gay?

But I'm getting off topic, here, and that's just too easy a thing to do in this debate on homosexuality.

The thing I really want to talk about is homosexuality as a sin. Let's get back to the book. In the book several characters discuss the concept of sin. As a group, they come to the conclusion that sin is anything that takes us away from love. Love is what brings us to God, so anything that causes us to stray from love is a sin because it diverts us from that path to God.

Maybe that is too simplistic a summary of the discussion within the book. That's why I want to encourage you to read it and draw your own conclusions. But I really like this view of sin that the author makes. It makes sense to me that a sin would be something that takes a person away from love and, therefore, takes a person off the path to God.

So, by that definition of sin, is having sex with a member of the same sex a sin? If two men, for example, are deeply in love and having sex... are they removing themselves from the path to God? If you accept the above-mentioned view of love, then no, they are not. As with a male/female couple, the two men are expressing their love for each other. So how can that be a sin?

Let's look at the Bible - which they do in the book. In the Bible, homosexuality is called a sin. Why? Well, in Thinking Straight, the characters talk about when the Bible was written. Think about it... at that time, there wasn't security like retirement plans or savings accounts. Okay, in this day and age of a terrible economy, it would seem we are losing that, but for the sake of arguement, let's pretend that isn't happening!

Back in the days of the Bible, if someone didn't have kids who would care for them when they were older, then someone else, the community perhaps, would have to. They would essentially become a burden to the community. That might, in theory, cause people to depart from love. Maybe they'd be angry about the situation. Today, though, that wouldn't really be a problem. Today, homosexuals, though they don't have kids, can pretty much take care of themselves and aren't a burden on society (not counting the fact that so many people are still burdened by the concept of homosexuality).

So the theory is presented in the book that maybe back then, because homosexuality caused people to depart from love and therefore stray from that path to God, that it was a sin. It WAS a sin. Maybe it isn't a sin today because homosexualty doesn't affect people in that same way today.

Can something that was considered a sin back then, lose that status over time? Say, for example... Eating pig (Leviticus 11:7)? Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:14)? Playing football (Levitivus 11:24-28)? Planting tulips with daffodiles (Leviticus 19:19)? Wearing a cotton-blend shirt (Leviticus 19:19)? Trimming your beard and side burns (Leviticus 19:27)? Getting a tatoo (Leviticus 19:28)? Working on Sunday, or whatever day you consider the Sabbath (Leviticus 19:30)? Standing up when an elderly person enters the room (Leviticus 19:32)? How about those sins that back then, required the sinner to be put to death: a son or daughter showing anger toward their parents - watch out teenagers (Leviticus 20:9), adultery (Leviticus 20:10)...

Today, many of those things wouldn't be considered sins. I mean who reading this loves to eat ham? Who reading this prefers to not have Elvis sideburns? Pastor...must you work on Sunday? So if these things aren't considered sins, why is homosexuality?

This is just what's on my mind right now. I really don't believe that expression of the love that one man has for another through sex is a sin. Granted, there are a lot of gay men out there who love to sleep around. I guess you could say there are a lot of gay men who love the freedom of multiple sex partners. But isn't that frowned upon as far as straight people go? If a gay couple is in a committed relationship, could their sexual activity be considered "making love?" If it IS "making love" then isn't it in keeping with the idea that they are still on that path of love to God?

Notice how I'm doing my best to not mention the fact that many people yell out "Oh God!" during sex? Really, I think that shows maturity!

So what do you think? Is this a sound arguement that maybe homosexuality isn't quite the sin that people still want to make it? Is it possible that, God willing, when I finally meet a guy who loves me and we enter into a relationship and we have sex out of love for each other, that we we won't be damning each other to hell because of it? I sure hope so.

I believe I was born gay. I believe that God made me gay. I believe that He's going to be okay with me having sex with a man with whom I am in love.

Now if only I could find that guy!