HOMOPHOBIA IN CHRISTIANITY

Why Abrahamic faiths are so virulently anti-gay

The following covers a topic very near and dear to my heart. As will be obvious to anybody who knows me even slightly, I have a major problem with Abrahamic religions. Simply put, practically everything about them is vile, noxious, and toxic to the progression of humanity as a whole. From their determination to preserve an oppressive and outmoded patriarchy to their obsession with belittling, disenfranchising, ostracising and even massacring those who don't agree with them, all three of the Abrahamic faiths are nought but relics of a far less enlightened period in human history. To give just one example, were this only a few hundred years ago, I would be put to death for the simple act of writing these words. And that's just in England. In some of the Islamic theocracies in the more arid parts of this pale blue dot, I still could be put to death for it. The dignity of the human race demands and deserves more than that.

But now, to business. One of the biggest bones of contention for many who adhere to these nonsensical and archaic superstitions is the modern acceptance of the world's many millions of gay people—or, as our religious 'brethren' would have it, of homosexuals. Or, to give them the name bestowed upon them by a silly myth involving angels, raining sulphur, the transformation of a human woman into a pillar of salt, and the eradication of two cities that never even existed... the modern acceptance of the Sodomites.

Now, the aggressive attitude of the 'pious' to our gay brothers and sisters has stuck in this heretic's craw for a while, but ever moreso as I have grown and come to know more and more people for whom the opposite sex holds no attraction, or who are attracted to both sexes. An old friend—name withheld—has been an 'out' lesbian for nearly ten years now, a turn of events which only ever bothered me because I had always found her strikingly attractive. Closer to home, one of my life's dearest friends—name similarly withheld—came out around four or five years ago, and has never been happier. During his adolescence and the journey to realising who he truly was—and I honestly hope he doesn't mind my semi-biography here—he had an incredibly hard time. Many tears were shed, there were many failed relationships with girls, and much parental speculation about his sexuality. As an aside, simply witnessing his struggle drove it home for me that the homophobe's favourite declaration—that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"—is a load of old cobbler's, simply because nobody would ever willingly subject themselves to such anguish, pain, strife and self-flagellation without being a particularly fundamentalist Catholic. The man himself has told me that he always knew in the back of his mind that he was gay, but was loath to admit it, either to his friends or family. Now, I will actually get to the heart of the matter.

I was going to write something funny here, but... I just can't.

For some reason, certain of our religious friends have always had a problem with our non-reproductive brothers and sisters—and please note I mean no slander toward the Religious Society of Friends: as everyone's favourite gay man Stephen Fry once said, who could possibly quarrel with a Quaker? Anyway. I have long wondered, among all the myriad things human beings can do to one another, why having sex with somebody of the same gender is so offensive to people of faith. By the way, of all the verses in the Bible, which feature prohibitions against everything from wearing garments of more than one fabric to eating the humble shellfish, there are only six which mention homosexuality. Many more—an order of magnitude more, in fact—feature lessons on how to treat the poor and disadvantaged, and it doesn't take a political science scholar to know how those on the right wing feel about helping the poor. So why was being gay such a terrible thing to the Bronze Age nomads who came up with these beliefs? I will be exploring the Christian view on homophobia, since it was Christianity I was brought up in and Christianity I am thus most familiar with. By the way, I will entertain no such assertions that the Torah, Bible or Quran are the "literal Word of God", as I am an evolved being with a brain capable of reason and logic, which is what I shall employ to find an answer to my question.

Firstly, it is necessary to understand the world in which the nomads lived. What is now the Middle East was, once upon a time, referred to as the Fertile Crescent, as it was the area where primitive man first was able to practice regular agriculture (viz. sowing and reaping the same area year after year, as opposed to the journeyman existence of small societies up to that point), serviced by the nourishing waters of the Tigris and Euphrates. So perhaps my choice of "nomads" was inaccurate. "Dunderheads", maybe (I jest). Now, there was only a limited amount of space available to be farmed, and because humans enjoy rutting like beasts, there was an ever-increasing number of people living on said lands.

This guy right here. This guy gets it. His sign's also a lot more
creative than the Westboro Baptist Church ones.

Allow me to digress for a time to discuss some of the other prohibitions listed in books like Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Exodus 22:31 proscribes eating "any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs." Now, you'd imagine that if you're one of the chosen few lucky enough to lay hands on a steak, you should wolf it down, but this was a primitive society where disease was not well understood; therefore, any food that didn't come from an animal set aside for consumption was to be considered "unclean". For the prosperity of a small group, this is pretty sensible—at the time. Similarly, Leviticus 7:21 forbids even touching "any unclean thing... or any unclean beast". As we know, Jews are forbidden from eating swine, and it has been speculated that this arose because human flesh, when burned, smells an awful lot like the flesh of our porcine friends. Indeed, the only thing to be done with an "unclean" thing is to burn it. A few verses later (Lev. 7:26), even eating any "manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast" is frowned upon to the point where the offending haematophagist is to be "cut off from his people". So tough luck if you like your steak rare. Again, this is linked to diseases borne in blood... but doesn't seem to matter in the masses and masses of blood sacrifices contained in these early books.

Nonetheless, these rules all seem sensible enough for a primitive civilisation with no real knowledge of germs, disease etc. This also applies to the law against the consumption of shellfish, as in Lev. 11:12, as there's no better way to catch a mean dose of food poisoning—fatal at the time—than eating bad shrimp. Unfortunately, this section also illustrates the ignorance inherent in mankind at the time, as bats are included in the prohibition of fowl. Bruce Wayne does not approve.

Gotham's Gay Pride parade even brought Batman and Bane together

Chapters 13-15 of Leviticus concern disease and its impact on small societies: anything the sick man touches is unclean, etc. A surprising astuteness, if ridiculously unfair to women, whose monthly cycle is lumped in with the lepers, the scabrous and the purulent. Aside from that stunning example of ignorant misogyny, most of Leviticus up until now has been fairly sensible. But now things get fun—and when I say fun, I mean sick, twisted and hateful.

I mentioned earlier how land was at a premium in those days. This becomes obvious from Lev. 20 onwards. If you want something that belongs to somebody else, and you lack the nous to negotiate for it, what do you do? You use violence; and it seems the sometime Jewish tradition of pacifism was not in force during the events of the Torah, as much of the book reads like the personal war diaries of King David the Particularly Bloodthirsty. Bear this in mind when you read the descriptions of those who are prohibited from offering sacrifices to God; the blind, the lame, the broken-footed or broken-handed, the crookbacked, "a dwarf", the man "that hath a blemish in his eye", or—hilariously enough—that "hath his stones broken". All of these are things that would prevent a man being an effective soldier, except for the broken stones, which would simply prevent him from having children. Remember that part, it's important.

"God is love," say the Christians. Apart from all those times when he totally isn't.

So, we have established that the thing that matters most to God—or rather, to the ruler of the Hebrews at this point—is a man's health and fitness, so that he may go to war to claim more land for his tribe. Since such joys as fighter jets, tanks and intercontinental ballistic missiles were yet to be invented, the winner of a battle would always be the side with the most soldiers. And with that, we are at last at the heart of the matter. Finally!

The only reason the Abrahamic religions are so virulently anti-gay is because two gay men cannot produce a child: indeed, with no attraction to women, they would NEVER produce children. Therefore, we end up with one of the vilest pieces of bigotry in the entire canon of these outdated, blood-soaked and vicious faiths:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(Leviticus 20:13)

There it is, in black and white. Centuries upon centuries of hatred, persecution and violence directed at gay people, for no other reason than that one tribe in the desert needed more soldiers than other tribes in the desert. While I am reluctant to give even a second's thought of credence to this bilge, it may have made sense in a limited populace when conflict with a neighbouring tribe meant the difference between survival and annihilation; however, this hateful dreck has absolutely NO relevance in a world with seven billion people and counting, a world that is already starting to weaken under the strain of supporting so many of us. In fact, it may be better for our long-term survival if more of us were gay. That, or celibate. Real celibacy, that is, not the "special" brand of celibacy practiced by certain of Catholic clergy.

By the way, as a parting shot, notice that there's no holy law anywhere in the entire Bible against woman lying with woman, despite no child arising from that union either. Why? Because they'd just rape the women and impregnate them that way. God has no problem with rape.

Eternally yours in reason,

Gregg Mather