On Same-sex Relations and Religion

Starting with Christianity, I searched for web site with vested interest in the topic of what the Bible says about same-sex relationships. There are many such pages out there, and I found one here that was well-written and non-argumentative. Across both the entirety of the Old and New Testaments, there are only a handful of places where it's mentioned explicitly, and a few others where it could be read implicitly. Most references are from that massive list of rules, Leviticus. In the New Testament, the topic was aligned to "proper sexual behavior" and so if one follows from Leviticus, same-sex relationships fall outside of there, and so that chunk may apply too. There's some modern discussion around the meaning of the "act" but not the "feelings" to be sinful, but this is one place where language and interpretation fail us. In legal decisions, sometimes it comes down to the specific wording, but I don't think it's the same way with Religious texts.

First off, almost every religious text, and all of the ancient ones, do not have their original words available to us. For those that we do have good original sources for, most of us do not speak the native language the text was written in. And so we have a translation effect added on top of the following discussion.

Religious texts, like any book, are written in specific time periods, and often include specific words or points that are appropriate for their current audience. Not one of any of these authors remotely suspected we'd be pouring over their words with a fine toothed comb thousands of years later. They were writing for their current followers, their current leaders, their modern day peers. In this way, they use the traditional language constructs available to them. If we were writing in America a few years ago, there'd be lots of "he/she" or "his/her" usage that we wouldn't see just 10 years later. We were clearly struggling linguistically at that time with gender equality issues. (Personally, I usually land on using "they" and "them", even when the intent is singular.)

The modern Christian Bible has some things to say about same-sex relations. One can make various arguments as to why it needed to be addressed (ancient taboos, encouraging reproduction), and it doesn't matter too much for this discussion. The words are fairly clearly stated. If a televangelist were writing his gospel today, I guarantee entire paragraphs would be dedicated to this subject, along with reasoning, a list of "do not's", and the appropriate punishments. 2,000 years ago, they clearly didn't think of it with this importance, and they treat the subject largely in passing when making other moral points.

As I read ancient texts such as the Upanishads, and as I read Buddhist teachings from a large range of years, I cannot recall a single sentence spelling out anything explicitly in regard to same-sex relationships. One can extrapolate from this a lack of a view to a position close to the modern progressive striving for all-inclusiveness, especially in the context of Oneness and Love. [n.b. I'm intentionally not counting the stories involving shape-shifting gods here, as the crux of those stories were various moral teachings and examples, and the gender of a specific being at a specific time really didn't matter to the teaching point.] However, there are many references where "wives" are discussed in various ways. When relationships do appear, it's often husband and wife, with traditional gender rolls.

My conclusion is that, based on the above arguments around writing for your audience, and translations across time and languages, these ancient texts were written by men, for men, and drew from their daily lives when needing examples. People in the stories wash in the river and trek through the jungle because that's what they all did in that time period. Or modern day fables of moral examples would have people commuting to work and vacationing in the sun. It's what we do. And back then, if there were literate people to be found, they were largely male. And society was often structured in that more primeval hunter/gatherer model (vs. modern misogyny), where men went out and took care of business while women stayed home to cook and rear children. Thus, when inditing their religious stories to paper, they would write in the role of the husband with a wife, washing in the river, walking through the jungle. The wording for "same-sex partner" would be as unfamiliar to them as the fundamental concept, and so I don't believe they had any reason to contemplate or to write about same-sex relationships. Similarly, even though we who study Buddhist writings are used to pouring over words for deeper meanings (after all, the first paragraph of the introduction to some of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books would give you enough to contemplate for a solid week!), when we hear Buddhist teachings that include traditional gender roles, I do not think we need to spend them any mind. And the deeper meaning of that passage lies in other words, regardless of the gender of the participants.

One final thought from the Buddhist side:  In general, attachment to worldly pleasures such as sexual gratification are viewed as distractions on the path to Enlightenment. Given that, there's probably no need to specifically ban same-sex sexual unions when no sexual unions are condoned.

Maybe this is all obvious to everyone, but I had to spend a little time contemplating it. My initial thoughts of "I wonder why the Bible even said anything about same-sex relationships" expanded down this path. Thank you for sharing the thought process, and as always, I would love to hear your thoughts.


Then said he: 'Lo, verily, not for love of the husband is a husband dear, but for love of the Soul (Ātman) a husband is dear.
Lo, verily, not for love of the wife is a wife dear, but for love of the Soul a wife is dear.' 

Upanishads Brih. 2.4.5


"Buddhism has in it no idea of there being a moral law laid down by some kind of cosmic lawgiver." -- Alan Watts

A learning moment?

[No image available for this post because the most appropriate image is one that holds strong negative connotations, so this is a better option.]

I think I had a learning moment yesterday in a realization that slowly dawned on me last night while reading Hesse's Siddhartha in bed. This may be a long wordy post, and it may be a somewhat selfish way to organize my thoughts, but I think and hope my potential insights may be beneficial to others.

Background

I got involved in a FaceBook thread around whether or not the Confederate Flag (more accurately the Battle Flag of Virginia) is a racist symbol. I was quickly outnumbered in this thread with several people defending its use, using the history argument - that it's part of American history and is a symbol of Southern Heritage. My viewpoint is that this Southern Heritage is explicitly tied to racism, which many articles and videos support. It's even a clear conclusion from viewing the Wikipedia page.

I approached the discussion from a rational viewpoint and carefully worded my posts as not to be argumentative. I gave the other participants the benefit of the doubt that they were arguing their position from a non-racist viewpoint. I did have my doubts about this, however. One participant's background image on his FB page looked like a shot from Duck Dynasty, with several bearded white men presenting their middle fingers in an aggressive manner. The person's page on which this thread appeared also showed strong Fox News-leaning tendencies as well, but I wouldn't have called him out on being a racist.

The thread went in strange directions. Many defensive links were posted, all with the same History argument. I pointed out that the swastika dates from neolithic times as a peaceful symbol (yeah, yeah Godwin's Law), but that no one in their right mind would every fly such a flag today. While historically a positive symbol, it was corrupted beyond repair by the Nazi Party. It's even illegal to fly it in Germany except in a museum setting. While nobody is suggesting outlawing the Confederate Flag, those flying it should recognize what a majority of people feel it represents.

Clearly we all disagreed and the discussion wasn't heading anywhere. We all seemed to be reaching a point where the thread had run its course (into a brick wall), and I was ready to let it die. I'm totally OK with not trying to have the last word in these kinds of debates, and it was time just to let it end.

The Escalation

And then my FB friend posted a fresh comment. This was a post shared from Fox News around President Obama's decision to allow private citizens to pay ransom without fear of prosecution. I am not well versed on this point, and I can see at least two sides to that issue. What grabbed my attention was my friend's commentary added to the posted link. It began "Our Muslim President has declared..." and then ranted about this decision.

Right here, I stopped. I made a public comment on this new thread quoting his words and thanked him for letting me put his views on the Confederate Flag in perspective. He is clearly more racist than I had wanted to give him credit for. I don't have any interest in that level of bullshit on my FaceBook feed, or in Real Life, and promptly unfriended him.

He then decided to air this publicly, calling me out by name, which was quickly pointed out to me (after all, we still have many friends in common). Clearly misunderstanding my reason for the abrupt end to our conversation, he called me out on getting "all bent" because of History and Southern Pride. In order to clear this up for him concisely and to close the loop for myself, I messaged him privately letting him know the "Muslim President" comment shows me where he really stands on the flag debate. He has not replied, and I have not further investigated his public airing of his grievance against me. So this is the end, right?

The Aftermath

I found myself in bed, reading, but still thinking about this. If you've read other posts on this blog, or know me at all, I'm very much into the "Be Here Now" philosophy. The past is the past, and there's nothing productive in dwelling on might-have-beens or carrying around past negative events. Yet this exchange kept popping into my mind.

If I was OK with everything I said (I still am - everything was backed up with facts, and I was not argumentative or mean in anything I said), why was this still with me? So I contemplated his side of the events. Was he sitting at home stewing and angry? I've seen and heard how he behaves, especially with alcohol involved, and I know there is a deep streak of anger in this man. I pictured him stewing in anger, feeling persecuted yet again. Maybe he is thinking of me, and pictures me similarly angry and still raving on this? With this thread still in my mind, am I? While contemplating this view, a new thought popped in my mind.

What if he's actually questioning himself? He claims he's not racist, then posts something literally racist. He was seemingly embarrassed enough by my response to on the second thread that he appears to have removed the whole thing. Maybe my pointing this out had some positive effect on him? That would be a great outcome from a pointless debate. Contemplating this, yet another angle came to mind.

The Learning Experience

Maybe he's not questioning anything. Maybe he is just sitting there angry. This, sadly, is the more likely path given my experiences with him. In this case, I've made him angry; I have caused suffering in another living being. Is this keeping me up because I'm ashamed of my actions? But I was trying to do the right thing here, trying to get people to understand the negative connotations associated with a symbol, trying to get them to see the other side of the story. And I'm still confident that I'm on the right side of this debate - history will show that. I was trying to help, and maybe, just maybe, I did.

But... maybe I caused suffering for another living being. Where does that fall in Buddhist teachings? I know well enough that I cannot be the root cause of another's anger - that exists entirely in their mind. However, for one to experience the root delusion of anger, one needs to have an Object on which to exaggerate bad qualities or consider to be undesirable. What if you are that Object to someone else? Is there negative Karma associated with this?

I guess there is always risk in trying to do Good that you will fail. After all, we're all traveling through Samsara together, and if we didn't cause suffering in one another, the amount of suffering in the world may not be enough for us to learn any lessons. Regardless, my take-away here, at this stage in my journey, is learning for myself that what's good for me may not be good for all. I shall endeavor to tread more lightly down these slippery paths where rational debate becomes heated discussion, leading to anger and suffering for someone involved - on either side of the discussion. Once your subject becomes angry, you've lost the ability to teach them anything. If they're angry from the start, having a rational debate is meaningless.

"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." -- Buddha