God and Sex

I have to admit, I don't always agree with NYT OpEd regular Nicholas D. Kristof, but in this particular editorial from 23.10.04, he seems to have an almost enlightened outlook.

Giving the Christofascists a lick with their own strop, Kristof questions the biblical validity of these cretin's homophobia.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.

A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.

Of course, being objective about the Bible has never been the "Bearing My Cross" crowd's strong point. Amazing how one can pick and choose which of God's Laws are valid, and which are just inconvenient. Leviticus, anyone? Can't wait for James Dobson to start advocating for a Constitutional Amendment mandating that men who commit adultery must bring a sacrifice (say, a ram) to the door of the local temple. Shit, he doesn't even want Hindu prayers in Congress. Where's the outrage over adultery, Jimmy D? You couldn't even swing a dead cat in the center aisle up there on Capitol Hill without clocking a few prime examples.

So then, as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, there are as many interpretations of the Bible as their are pages in the dusty old tome. What makes the Fundies think theirs is the one true interpretation, open neither to criticism or refutation?

Simple answer: it's not about Biblical authority, it's about Power.

As long as the hysterical anti-gay folks on the right (Fred Phelps, for example) think that this is a bedrock issue, it will be. No amount of reasoning, dissuasion or screaming will ever penetrate their holier-than-all-of-y'all false piety. Give somebody a reason to hate, and they no longer need to reason. Simple, no?

And as long as the cynical Republican machine can possibly use this to their advantage, they will. They'll even co-opt willing Uncle Tom's Cabin... er, I mean LOG Cabin... Republicans who keep thinking "maybe if I don't act gay, they'll let me have a drink in the hospitality suite this time." After all, look at Ken Mehlman who as of this writing looks poised to take over as Chair of the RNC. Who said a gay Republican can't climb to the top over the backs of our community, spitting and cursing all the way? Oh, wait, it's not confirmed that he's gay. Hey, as long as they don't catch him sodomizing one of the interns, I guess he's ok in their book. A tame homo. How cute.

This is clearly one of the most extended rim-jobs in history. Determining just whose tongue is up whose shithole, I shall leave as an exercise for the class.