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