Homosexuality: Exploitation Argument

[Epistemes]

When discussing how homosexuality is presented in the Bible, some people claim that, yes, the Bible always views homosexuality negatively - however, they say, the Bible condemns homosexuality as exploitative; not the loving, faithful relationships which we find in contemporary society. That is, homosexuality becomes sinful when a person is carelessly used for their body, then discarded as a sexual object, thus denying that person integrity and dignity as a human and child of God. Further, they maintain that words typically translated as "homosexual" and/or "homosexuality" in some translations should be translated "pervert" and/or "perversion" in order to indicate that exploitative sex, whether between male and male, female and female or male and female, is always wrong and a perversion of proper, just use of sex.

This appears to be a very compelling, well-researched argument. Considering Romans 1:24-27 in light of this argument, Paul's concerns and instructions do seem much different, especially considering Paul's concern with marriage/celibacy in 1 Corinthians.

Have you of you had contact with this argument? What are your thoughts? Are there any resources directly debunking this argument?

 

[OliviaMay]

Seems logical to me.

 

[BryanW92]

When discussing how homosexuality is presented in the Bible, some people claim that, yes, the Bible always views homosexuality negatively - however, they say, the Bible condemns homosexuality as exploitative; not the loving, faithful relationships which we find in contemporary society. That is, homosexuality becomes sinful when a person is carelessly used for their body, then discarded as a sexual object, thus denying that person integrity and dignity as a human and child of God. Further, they maintain that words typically translated as "homosexual" and/or "homosexuality" in some translations should be translated "pervert" and/or "perversion" in order to indicate that exploitative sex, whether between male and male, female and female or male and female, is always wrong and a perversion of proper, just use of sex.

This appears to be a very compelling, well-researched argument. Considering Romans 1:24-27 in light of this argument, Paul's concerns and instructions do seem much different, especially considering Paul's concern with marriage/celibacy in 1 Corinthians.

Have you of you had contact with this argument? What are your thoughts? Are there any resources directly debunking this argument?

I encountered that argument often when I was a Methodist. The words in Romans 1:27 directly debunk it. I looked up the Greek in Strong's and found that they used the same word for "men" all three times, yet Greek contains words for "boy" and "prostitute". If they mean boy, prostitute, sex slave, or boy prostitute; then why use the word for men?

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Have you of you had contact with this argument? What are your thoughts? Are there any resources directly debunking this argument?

This is helpful (and 100% worth the read):

http://adam4d.com/locusts/

And to a lesser extent, this:

http://adam4d.com/1cor6-9-10-apv/

 

[JM]

When discussing how homosexuality is presented in the Bible, some people claim that, yes, the Bible always views homosexuality negatively - however, they say, the Bible condemns homosexuality as exploitative; not the loving, faithful relationships which we find in contemporary society. That is, homosexuality becomes sinful when a person is carelessly used for their body, then discarded as a sexual object, thus denying that person integrity and dignity as a human and child of God. Further, they maintain that words typically translated as "homosexual" and/or "homosexuality" in some translations should be translated "pervert" and/or "perversion" in order to indicate that exploitative sex, whether between male and male, female and female or male and female, is always wrong and a perversion of proper, just use of sex.

This appears to be a very compelling, well-researched argument. Considering Romans 1:24-27 in light of this argument, Paul's concerns and instructions do seem much different, especially considering Paul's concern with marriage/celibacy in 1 Corinthians.

Have you of you had contact with this argument? What are your thoughts? Are there any resources directly debunking this argument?

That's the typical Matthew Vines argument and it is false. The old covenant is clear. The new covenant tells us homosexual activity is lustful and sinful. Dr. James White debates Vines on the issue if you're interested in a detailed rebuttal.

 

[hedrick]

I’m sympathetic with Vines, but I don’t think the argument you mention will work, because it isn’t based on what we know of 1st Cent Judaism, nor Paul’s known views.

We would certainly consider much of 1st Cent homosexual practice as exploitative. But 1st Cent Jews, and Paul, didn’t seem particularly sensitive to this issue. If they had been, we’d see it in the attitude towards slavery and other things. I certainly think we’re right to have this concern, and I think Jesus supports it, but I don’t see any reason to think that’s what Paul had in mind in Rom 1.

If you want to know the 1st Cent attitude towards same-gender sex (not homosexuality, since that concept didn’t exist), Gagnon’s book is much more useful, although Gagnon is opposed to acceptance of same-gender sex. It reviews in great detail the attitudes of Jews, Romans, and others, citing copious evidence. Jews regarded same-gender sex as inherently degrading. While there were surely homosexuals in the modern sense then, and probably some with relationships we’d consider OK, it was common to view same-gender sex as something practiced by ordinary (presumably heterosexual) people when normal sex had paled, and no longer provided enough excitement. I think that’s what you see pretty clearly in Rom 1:26-27.

CF rules prohibit me from going further to discuss the implications.

It’s hard to comment on the words that may or may not refer to same-gender sex in the sin lists. I suspect at least one of them does. I find some of Vines’ arguments unconvincing. However exactly what the terms covered, and why, is going beyond what one can get from the lists or the other evidence (or lack thereof) for what the words meant.

 

[JM]

I'm not sympathetic of Vines. He's promoting sin.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I’m sympathetic with Vines, but I don’t think the argument you mention will work, because it isn’t based on what we know of 1st Cent Judaism, nor Paul’s known views.

We would certainly consider much of 1st Cent homosexual practice as exploitative. But 1st Cent Jews, and Paul, didn’t seem particularly sensitive to this issue. If they had been, we’d see it in the attitude towards slavery and other things.

Bingo. The whole argument is based on modern feminist premises, and can be dismissed accordingly.

 

[hedrick]

Bingo. The whole argument is based on modern feminist premises, and can be dismissed accordingly.

If you have to be a feminist to be concerned about exploitation of women and children, then I guess I'm a feminist. However as a matter of honest exegesis, it's unlikely that that was Paul's concern in this passage.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I’m sympathetic with Vines, but I don’t think the argument you mention will work, because it isn’t based on what we know of 1st Cent Judaism, nor Paul’s known views.

We would certainly consider much of 1st Cent homosexual practice as exploitative. But 1st Cent Jews, and Paul, didn’t seem particularly sensitive to this issue. If they had been, we’d see it in the attitude towards slavery and other things. I certainly think we’re right to have this concern, and I think Jesus supports it, but I don’t see any reason to think that’s what Paul had in mind in Rom 1.

If you want to know the 1st Cent attitude towards same-gender sex (not homosexuality, since that concept didn’t exist), Gagnon’s book is much more useful, although Gagnon is opposed to acceptance of same-gender sex. It reviews in great detail the attitudes of Jews, Romans, and others, citing copious evidence. Jews regarded same-gender sex as inherently degrading. While there were surely homosexuals in the modern sense then, and probably some with relationships we’d consider OK, it was common to view same-gender sex as something practiced by ordinary (presumably heterosexual) people when normal sex had paled, and no longer provided enough excitement. I think that’s what you see pretty clearly in Rom 1:26-27.

CF rules prohibit me from going further to discuss the implications.

It’s hard to comment on the words that may or may not refer to same-gender sex in the sin lists. I suspect at least one of them does. I find some of Vines’ arguments unconvincing. However exactly what the terms covered, and why, is going beyond what one can get from the lists or the other evidence (or lack thereof) for what the words meant.

i have always found it amusing when somebody attempts to come up with a unique interpretation for words or passages of scripture that nobody has accepted or advocated in the 2000+ years that the present incarnation of the church has existed. The people who have provided the historical interpretation would include those believers who spoke the language of the New Testament every day as a first language, and those who were acutely familiar with the cultural nuances of the various peoples to whom those passages were addressed.

Frankly, i would prefer their unified (yes, i realise in other areas those people were in disagreement, but not in this particular area) word over the ravings of somebody who suddenly comes up with something that the entire church has missed for 2000+ years.

Here in the 21st Century we have a term for such people: Revisionists.

i'm not at all sympathetic to Matthew Vines: He really hasn't come up with anything unique --that is to say anything that other revisionists hadn't developed earlier. His basic contentions --the work of other revisionists-- were refuted long ago.

For a more balanced perspective, you may wish to consult the work of Rosaria Butterfield.