Another Response to Sodomy and Civil Rights

MOJ-reader Jonathan Watson sends this response to David Weiss's piece on committed same-sex relationships and sodomy:

" Dear Prof. Weiss,

"I find your piece on committed same-sex relationships interesting, though I think flawed in its reasoning. You begin with the premise that, "Not in this text—nor in any other biblical text—is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships." In your bare assertion, I believe you are correct. Nowhere in the Bible is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships, and in fact, the legal use of the term sodomy in our country might be mistaken in the reference to the Sodomites. In fact, I suspect Christ  lauds (for example) two brothers living together, raising an orphan. However, since your email / post specifically refers to homosexual couples and Prop. 8, it is worth noting what the Bible says about same-sex relations. I believe I can safely assume that you do not separate same-sex coupling from sexual activity.

 

"To begin with some examples from the bare text, Leviticus 18:22 states: "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:24 reiterates the command even more strongly. It is even repeated in Leviticus 20:13, which states "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."  Second, the men of Sodom sought to "know" Lot's guests in the Bible. One could argue that he simply sought to defend their guest rights, but the point is very debatable. St. Paul understood this in writing to the Corinthians that "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." If that is not enough, St. Paul condemns homosexuality more directly in Romans, saying, "And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error."

 

"I believe that suffices for a bare textual argument against homosexual acts. It is interesting to note that the New Testament contains more direct condemnation (as in divorce) against homosexual acts. Oddly, there is no mention of pagan temple prostitution, military rape, or pederasty (except as other sins, of course). Turning to some of the earliest Christian writers, we find their understanding that the various texts outlined above DID refer to homosexual acts. For a Catholic, it is impossible to ignore the interpretation of these writers.

 

"So, while I agree that using majoritarian power is unjust to certain ends (sending all homosexuals to live in camps in western deserts, for example), it is not acting as a Sodomite to refuse to enable, or refuse to bless with legal entitlement and recognition, sinful action."