Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Error]

does the bible ever directly state anything about lesbians?

i know that there is "a man who wishes to sleep with another man should be stoned" written in the bible, but is there ever stated anything concretely against lesbians?

i'm not asking for opinions on it, i'm just asking if it's directly stated that you shouldn't be a lesbian in the bible.

[Fish Farm]

I wouldn't say that it is directly stated that you shouldn't be lesbian; I'll leave the interpretation of the passage up to you, but same-sex relations between women are mentioned once in Romans 1.18-32, especially verse 26:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones."

[Error]

Calling it unnatural, not a clear stance against it, but it goes against homosexual men way harder. If that'severything i'd say the bible isn't directly opposed to lesbians.

[Rogue One]

> If that'severything i'd say the bible isn't directly opposed to lesbians.

Which is of course to completely miss the point of the Romans passage.

You'd hardly call it an endorsement would you?

[jimwalton]

Fitzmyer writes,

"The contrast between 'women' and 'males' in vv. 26-27 shows that the 'disgraceful passions' of which Paul speaks are the sexual perversions of homosexual activity. The depravity involved in such conduct is the merited consequence of pagan impiety and idolatry. Having exchanged a true God for a false one (1.25), pagans inevitable exchanged their true natural functions for perverted ones."

James Brownson (a long quote, but may answer your question):

"This verse should be interpreted in an honor-shame cultural context. What we can see here is not simply the shaming of women, but also the shaming of the men in whose households these women reside. In an honor-shame culture, just about any kind of sexual impropriety on the part of females would be considered shaming the male head of household. Such shame is clearly what the writer has in mind here, particularly when we note that there is not a parallel reference to “their men” in the following verse. Whatever the “dishonorable passions” might be, the effect of this behavior is to bring shame, not only on the women themselves, but on the heads of their households as well. This suggests some kind of public disgrace, and not merely a private act. Again, the outrageous public sexual behavior of the women in the household of Gaius Caligula fits this description perfectly.

"Yet this interpretation is not universally embraced. Some scholars say that this verse refers to female same-sex eroticism; others believe that Paul has in mind other forms of heterosexual misbehavior between men and women, either oral/anal intercourse or simply a failure to act in sexually proper ways. The lesbian interpretation of the verse appears nowhere in the early church prior to Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster in the late 4th century, despite fairly common discussion of this text among the patristic commentators. For example, both Clement of Alexandria and Augustine interpret it as referring to oral or anal intercourse between men and women. Also, in the ancient world, while there is a close connection between male same-sex activity in idolatry in the ancient world,[1] there are no associations anywhere in the ancient world between female same-sex eroticism and idolatry, making such a linkage less likely in the context of Romans 1, where the larger question in view is clearly the consequences of idolatry (Rom .1.22-23).

"So while the passage most likely is not about lesbianism, what emerges more clearly is the relationship between the female sexual misbehavior of 26 and the male sexual misbehavior of 27, creating some sort of analogy[2] between the sexual misconduct of the two verses. What has been assumed is that what is analogous is that they both refer to same-sex eroticism, yet what is stated explicitly is something different. Both of these forms of sexual misbehavior are explicitly identified as “degrading” or “shameless.” The “dishonoring” of bodies is first introduced in v. 24, and then repeated again in the reference of “degrading passions” in 26 and “shameless behavior” in 27. The text makes it clear that at least one thing these behaviors have in common is that they all violate ancient Mediterranean understandings of honor and shame.

"For women, the honor-shame codes are violated by engaging in any kind of sexual impropriety, and violating such codes brings shame on both the woman and the head of the household in which she resides. For men, the relationship between honor, shame, and sexual impropriety is a bit more complicated. In the ancient world generally, men would lose honor if they violated the rights of another man by having sex with his wife or daughter. But for a man to have sex with his female slave or a female captured in war was not considered dishonorable; this was the man’s right. In the wider Greco-Roman culture, it was not even regarded as shameful for a man to make sexual use of male slaves, as long as the master was not himself penetrated. For a man to play the role of a woman and to be penetrated, however, was clearly a violation of honor: it was considered inherently degrading.

"Yet the Biblical writers also qualify in important ways the common ancient assumption that only the passive partner in male-male sex was degraded or culpable. In Leviticus 18.22; 20.13, no moral distinction is made between active and passive partners; both as subject to the death penalty. Romans 1.27 likewise makes no distinction between active and passive partners. Some would say, then, that it proves this is not about honor/shame, except that 1.27 explicitly describes it as “shameless.”

[1] Specifically in the widespread Magna Mater, or Cybele, cult
[2] The symmetrical references to “males” and “females” in the two verses, along with the balanced use of the Greek particle te in both verses

[Error]

so a verse that is generally interpreted as something else, but can be interpreted as lesbians being bad. And saying that "sexual misbehavior" is bad, but "sexual misbehavior" is never defined so lesbian relations might not be included here.

[jimwalton]

Right. Paul's theme in the section is that sin comes from a rebellious heart that often first plays itself out in sexual license and aberrations. Our sinful desires are bubbling inside of us, and the first casualty is often sexual purity. When the spiritual is shut out, the flesh steps into the spotlight. It's "The Lord of the Flies" (rejection of moral authority) combined with "Animal House" (acceptance of sexual indulgence).

God has shown people the way to purity and honor, but they have rebelled so strongly against truth and morality that God allows them the freedom to have their own way and He abandons them to their own devices—the sinful desires they are determined to pursue, here: sexual impurity.

That's the overarching theme. Everything Paul says under this heading falls into the category of "sexual impurity." They've pushed God out of their lives and are filling the space with the physical pleasures of sexual activity. It starts out with "shameful lusts" (Rom. 1.26), i.e., erotic passions.

His first example is women and how to define "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." Whatever these women are doing, it qualifies as unnatural and shameful. Its juxtaposition with a verse about male homosexual activity makes it likely that here Paul is talking about lesbianism, especially given the "in the same way" at the beginning of v. 27. If Paul were talking about adultery, he would use the word for adultery (Paul was not averse to condemning adultery) and he would not have used the category "unnatural." If he were talking about other forms of sexual behavior (anal sex, oral sex, or bestiality), (1) he would be missing the elephant in the room in Roman culture, i.e., homosexuality, and (2) he would be raising a subject that he mentions nowhere else.

Other Hellenistic Jewish writers also categorize homosexual behavior as "contrary to nature." I think the likelihood that he is condemning lesbianism is high.

I also think that even if Paul is including other sexual misbehavior, he is not excluding lesbianism.