Old vices don't improve with age

To Mr. Reynolds and the editors:

Please explain to me how calling gays "unchaste", "libertine", and "hateful" is in any way helpful to ending the bullying of gay young men?

Once again we see gay-haters paying lip service to the bullying question out of one side of their mouths while simultaneously telling the gay bigots that bullying is actually okay because those disgusting, immoral gays really do deserve it.

Why is the Washington Post publishing this garbage?

It's the same as publishing anti-semitic and racist diatribes. Oh, or is this okay because it's a "religious" opinion?

John Mark Reynolds:

You imply and insinuate, but never explicitly state your position nor any reasoned argument.

The Tanakh does not condemn gayness since the ancient tribes did not have the construct.

This is not only the view of Judaic scholars but of Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, Reconstructionism, and it is becoming increasingly problematic among the Orthodox.

In fact, what Tanakh was at pains to end was male on male rape, all the rage in the region during the period. Archival research findings on this are numerous, but see "The Contending of Horus and Seth," available on the web. Scholarly articles abound.

In first century Greece, adult male "sex" with juveniles was still common and ethically supported with reasons such as those Plato supplies. However, it was beginning to become morally uncomfortable and, in fact, embarrassing for the Greeks, on which, see Foucault. The ancient Greek Jews were horrified, repulsed, since to them it seemed identical to the rape condemned in the Tanakh, and, later, in Talmud. (It goes to their notion of inequality.)

See also ANY OXFORD Study Bible (including Christian/Catholic) on this.

Even the less knowledgeable Christian clerical homophobes are aware of the foregoing, and, partly for this reason, are less and less resorting to Lev.

INstead they most often turn to their "NT" (sic)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
“ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Realizing that law 1 is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 2 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 1 Tim 1:9-10

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Continued

I will not refer you to the increasing number of Christian interpretations which take issue with a literalist reading of the foregoing, since you should be abundantly capable of locating them on your own.

I will say this. You may condemn the recent California murder of a gay teen, the four suicides, the beating of a fourteen-year-old boy on a Long Island bus yesterday. HOwever, the rhetoric you spout is a huge contributor to anti-gay hatred, suicide, murder--Christian heterosexual immorality.

Religion of Love, eh?

Show me.

In this (long) defense of all that is old, no where does he admit that the past held error.

Slavery, treatment of women, "rights" of kings, are ideas that held in Biblical times, were defended by the Bible or by the religious leaders and followers as being from God.

It took centuries to end slavery; it wasn't until the last century that we finally got rid of laws that said that people who are not white and white people could go to school together, drink from the same water fountain, and even marry. Slavery was vigorously defended by very rightous Christians, not condemed by the Bible.

Women can now vote, work, hold property, and (God Bless the pill) choose when they will have children. All these freedoms were fought against by very rightous Christians.

"There is nothing new, but every old vice always comes announcing that this time, surely this time, it is different."

There are new things under the sun. They are the understandings we gain of how prejudice limits us and denies God's gifts that are in all of us. We can be educated enough and thoughtful enough to rule ourselves, not be ruled by kings. Slavery is wrong. Women can think, vote, work, pray, and preach just as well as men - despite the limits placed on them by the Bible, the Apostles, and many Christian churches even today.

What about the bubonic plague that killed one third of the population of Europe?

The people in those days did not invent the plague and should not be blamed for it because of the way they lived.

"""debauchery"
Seriously, who even uses that word anymore?"
Is that supposed to counter my original point that hypersexuality among gay men set the stage for the rapid spread of HIV?
"
No, just an observation. I haven't heard that word since some sweaty fat Baptist preacher was shouting it at us at a revival tent back in the 60's.

" the racial thing is just a red herring"

By that you mean a "valid point you do not wish to argue."
The rate of HIV infections in the U.S. is highly disproportionate by race. Is race causitive or cocincidental? Same question for M/M debauchery/buggery/turpitude/depravity/fornication.

Gladerunner,

""debauchery"
Seriously, who even uses that word anymore?"

Is that supposed to counter my original point that hypersexuality among gay men set the stage for the rapid spread of HIV?

I don't even argue for some kind of stigma or payback but the Ryan White Act costs the US treasury about one billion a year. That is a cost to society for willingly flouting the rules of biology in the furtherance of immediate desires. It is a burden that every gay young man must face.

BTW, your stated figures for current HIV infections are a joke. The CDC doesn't even have a category for most heterosexuals, those who do not engage in high risk contact and the racial thing is just a red herring.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/incidence.htm

edbyronadams
“HIV has a preferred route for sexual transmission.”
You are correct that there is a preferred route. M/M partnering occurrences have held somewhat steady, while M/F occurrences have been rapidly rising. Whereas it may once have had an increasing prevalence among m/m it apparently has found a new preferred path. And African Americans are four times more likely to fall victim than whites. Maybe we should address the race component as well, make being black illegal/shunned/have rights denied since their HIV rate is so disproportionate.

"debauchery"
Seriously, who even uses that word anymore?

"Your whole AIDS argument is moot. AIDS doesn't care a whit about a person's gender preference."

In this country, HIV has a preferred route for sexual transmission. While this reality has been hidden in the fog of the "Safe Sex" message, the reality remains. That perverse form of sexual expression is a bad idea for all people regardless of orientation.

Hetero men, especially young men are constrained by female sexuality. The practicality of hundreds of partners is limited to super alpha males of entertainment and sports for the most part. There would not have been the rapid spread of HIV if debauchery was as constrained for gay young men.

"The new morality is too often the old immorality tricked out in pseudo-scientific language or backed with force. Many seem to assume there is something new under the moral sun, but there is not". No it is not. The new morality is more universal and tolerant old morality has been nothing but in-group solidarity and out-group hostility. Just an instance of old school morality Deuteronomy 14:21. Compare that with what you get in any of the US grocery store by law. What is more moral, today's morality or the 2500 years old vile stuff.

These bigots will make up whatever stuff to justify their immoral positions. What two consenting adults do, as long as it does not directly interfere with the livelihood of any third person is none of the fourth person's business, nor is it the state's business.

" Gay men have the burden of a double dose of testosterone, the libido hormone, between them and the tendency toward sexual profligacy that biological reality lays upon them comes at a cost to them and society at large."

Exactly how does two consenting dudes rubbing their naughty bits against each other in the privacy of their own home affect society? It's not even like they're reproducing or anything. They're not forcing you or anyone else to join in.
And what does it matter to you if they 'do it' twelve times per month or a hundred as long as they are doing it with other consenting adults?
Your whole AIDS argument is moot. AIDS doesn't care a whit about a person's gender preference.

Your condemnation of bullying is commendable, but it would be more convincing if it weren't preceded by denunciations of sexuality outside your own narrow comfort zone as "vice", "misuse" of sexual desire and part of a "pattern of decadence and decay".

And yes, morality does change with the times; there was a time when it was morally acceptable (and Biblically defensible) to own other people as chattle, to treat the "savages" of the New World like animals to be hunted, to deny women their rights as human beings, to make children work in deadly mines...the Bible even celebrates the genocide of the Canaanite peoples as a virtue.

Thank goodness (not God) that our morality has progressed, and may it continue to do so.

"Well, that’s a stretch I think. Civilization is much more about living peaceably and cooperatively with one another"

It is also about not giving in to immediate desires and considering the effect such indulgence has on the whole. That is the glue that holds society together. For gay men that is an apparent burden. The irony that the AIDS epidemic was an immediate follow on to the liberation of Stonewall should not be lost on anyone. Gay men have the burden of a double dose of testosterone, the libido hormone, between them and the tendency toward sexual profligacy that biological reality lays upon them comes at a cost to them and society at large.

Mr. Reynolds is a snob.

He was born into the preferred and more properly accepted sexual orientation, and he looks down his snobby nose at people who were not as fortunate as he was.

Being gay is not bad, it is not a sin, it is not a vice.

The only thing wrong with being gay is all the people who hate you, or who hold an innately supperior attitude towards gay people, or who claim falsely (but often with fearful gravitas)that God hates gay people.

Any reliigious thought, sight unseen, that leads to an anti-gay agenda is wrong; it is more than wrong; it is junk religion; it is trash religion; and I do not mind being so impolite as to say Mr. Reynolds promotes trash religion on a regular basis.

I believe in a doctrine of tolerance as a principle of religion, but it does not extend to junk and trash religion.

"There is nothing new in human nature. There are no new moral facts. Sexual desire is still good and powerful and, as Plato saw, still capable of destroying the soul."

Well here's an old fact, if not a "moral" one: Plato idealized the philosophic potential of the erotic bond between two men. According to Plato's "moral" compass, homoeroticism is not merely tolerable, nor even simply a good thing, but the basis of the most exalted of human loves.

Since you are so partial to Plato, Prof Reynolds, perhaps you could treat us to a treatise on the virtues of platonic homoeroticism, and what it has to offer Christian men today.

Might help out guys/gays of the Ted Haggard variety.

"Civilization partly consists of teaching men and women to say "no" to desires that are not productive or useful to their souls."

Here, the monolithic, universalised "civilization" appears to be code for "Christian consensus".

What constitutes "civilized" values is, of course, variable across times and places. Graeco-Roman civilization accepted conquest, slavery, the subordination of women, and innate superiority over "barbarians" as matter-of-fact aspects of the "natural" order. The Greeks had a strong (and philosophically endorsed) tradition of idealized homoeroticism. The Romans sustained a view that witnessing slaughter in the amphitheatre could be existentially edifying for the citizenry.

In Sumero-Akkadian civilizations, a relaxed attitude to sexual expression was not merely tolerated, but seen as a hallmark of civilized conviviality.

In Central American civilizations, ritual bloodletting and even human sacrifice were of the essence - civilization without them was inconceivable.

Prof Reynolds' deployment of the term "soul" is also freighted with Christian baggage, as if it had common signification for all "civilization". The notion that civilizations generally are concerned with shepherding "souls" is risible! As could be expected, the anthropology and metaphysics of civilizations differ significantly, certainly far too much to be casual about what "soul" might connote, or what the effects of moral instruction were expected to be.

For one as highly educated as Prof Reynolds to deploy these categories so misleadingly is both patronising and disingenuous on his part.

Mr. Perkins is entitled to his opinions as anyone else in this country; however, we have to tone down the hateful and violent tone by which most homophobic ministers rant their position.

Enclosed is an article which hit the Internet this morning concerning Bishop Eddie Long and the rumbling that's going on in his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church over allegations he had sex with four young men in his church.

Bishop Eddie Long Scandal Takes Toll on Church Members:
http://www.sandiegocountynews.com/2010/10/12/bishop-eddie-long-scandal-takes-toll-on-church-members/

“Civilization partly consists of teaching men and women to say "no" to desires that are not productive or useful to their souls.”

Well, that’s a stretch I think. Civilization is much more about living peaceably and cooperatively with one another. It’s not so much about saying ‘no’ as it is ‘there’s a time and place’. Civilization really has no need for souls. Civilization always refers to people living amongst each other. One doesn’t need a dim, blurry natural moral law etched in places that are hard to see to figure out that if he steals from his neighbor then he opens the door for rebuke or retribution. It doesn’t take him long to figure out that urinating on someone’s door will lead to an eye for an eye, or worse. He can even figure out that if he helps his neighbor it is more likely that the neighbor might someday help him in return. Even wild animals have things like this figured out.
And not everything we do in the course of a day needs to be productive and ‘useful.’ Downtime is fine, dozing off in a recliner during a ballgame does nothing for the ‘soul’ and is hardly productive, but it causes no harm either. Speaking Hippocratically, ‘first, do no harm’ is a great step one for civilization and individuals.
And as homosexual behavior between consenting adults, like napping during a football game causes no harm to anyone, why worry about it?