The bible is the word of God but human interpretation can be fallible. The basis of the conservative stand which stems from christianity is that homosexuality is categorically a sin, perverse, deviant etc.

However, after a thorough examination of the bible, I’m not too sure if it is really sin and we need to re-examine our intepretation.

We can see how morality has evolved within the bible itself.

1) After the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen19), Lot and his daughters commit incest to perpetuate reproduction when Lev 18 and 20 clearly prohibit it. (Gen 19:31). Eventually, this incestuous relation spawned a tribe of Moabites (Ruth). From Ruth’s union together with Boaz (son of the prostitute Rahab) came David and later Jesus.

2) Women were regarded as chattels/property as evidenced in several of God’s laws in the Old testament. Eg when a woman was raped, the rapist had to marry her after paying a sum of money to her father. Women were also regarded as vessels of reproduction. (There was a law in which a widow who had no son had to marry the second son in line to sire a male.) Many of the men in the Old Testament had several wives, Abraham, Issac etc again for the purposes of reproducton. It was only when Jesus came that adulterty was sanctioned and the status of women was elevated.

3) Slavery was allowed in the olden times but it is now clearly “abominable” and “criminal” as is incest and rape.

When the bible is read, it has to be intepreted within its proper context which includes the following:-

a) the point in time in which the book is written;
b) the history, literature and philosophy employed by the writer;
c) the audience that the writer is addressing etc.

In my view, there is a distinction between absolute morality and contextual morality ie you cannot simply superimpose what is infinite onto what is finite.

Most Christians assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah represents God’s wrath against homosexuality. Unfortunately it is not so.

Ezekial 16: 49 reads: Look this was the inquity of your sister Sodom. She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idlenes; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, and they were haughty and committed abominations..and so I took them away as I saw fit.

Zephaniah 2:8-11: I’ve hear the reproach of Moab…. With which they have reproached my pple, & made arrogant threats against their borders. …..Surely Moah shall be like Sodom, & the people of Ammon like Gomorrah…..because they have reproached & made arrogant threats against the people of the Lord of Hosts” (pride, arrogance and inhospitality but not homosexuality)

Matt 10:11-15: “Now whatever city/town you enter, inquire who is in it is worthy & stay there till you go out & whoever will not receive your words, when you depart that house/city shake off the dust from your feet….Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Jesus’ words of inhospitality but not homosexuality, see also Mark:6-11, Luke 10:10-12, Luke 17: 26-29, Lamentations 4:3-6,Isiah 13: 11-19 etc)

There are a total of 29 verses pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah and nowhere is homosexuality mentioned. Hence, christians who maintained that it does have according to the bible, gotten the Gospel wrong.

Interestly is the parallel story in Judges.(Read Judges: 19:11-30)(Gen 19:29). There, the men in Gibeah similarly demanded sex from a travelling Levite who took refuge in an old man’s house. In Gibeah, the men too were offered women which they first spurned but later raped & killed . The offering of women by Lot and the old man was obviously a diversionary tactic and if the men were really gay, then it makes no sense to offer women to them just for them to spurn it. The difference between the two stories is that the travellers in Sodom were angels who blinded them while the Levite in Gibeah was only an ordinary man. Otherwise the men in Sodom would have raped Lot’s daughters. The Levite in Gibeah subsequently chopped up his raped and dead concubine into pieces and distributed them to other people. (This again emphasizes how low the status of women was in that society). Later, the Levite, with the help of the Israelites and God, too destroy the city.

The sin in Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. In the olden times, the ancient code of hospitality was sancrosant ie, when a foreigner seeks refuge in your home, you cannot let anything happen to him and this stems from Jesus’ second commandent of loving thy neighbour as thyself. It is repeated several times in the Old Testament:

And, if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you……you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev 19: 33-34, See also Ex 22:21, Deut 14:29, 24:14-22, Rom 12:6-15 etc)

In the olden times, there were dangerous places in various lands & wars and the winner often raped the defeated male enemy for to treat them as women would make them feel inferior. Lot & the old man in Gibeah were merely abiding by the ancient code of hospitality by extending a roof over the angels and Levite (travellers seeking refuge in a foreign land)

Christians who assume that the sin in Sodom was homosexuality have equated the homosexual act/ rape with homosexuality. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two; one is merely an act while the other is a sexual orientation/preference/inclination (whether biological/psycological). As in heterosexual unions, it is not the sex that governs the relationship but the mind and emotions of gay people that governs it. The question is whether the writers at that time had a concept of sexual preference when they penned down God’s word.

Another salient point is that Jesus said nothing on homosexuality. Jesus had plenty to say about adultery but mentioned nothing on homosexuality. If it is really that evil, perverse or dangerous, then it is odd that he said nothing about it. Christians who take that stand have to address this point.

In Matt 19:11-12 Jesus makes the following remark:

All cannot accept this saying but only those to whom it has been given..For there are enunchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, & there are enunchs who were made enunchs by men……He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.

In the old testament, enunchs were mentioned several times in Esther & Isaiah. (The prophet Daniel too was a enunch). The king in olden times used to get enunchs to look after his concubines. These men were either castrated ones or born enunchs who were the homosexuals….(Others though, take the view that born enunchs are men without testicles). Whatever Jesus meant, it is unclear. However in Isaiah 56:4-8, it is prophesized

To the eunuchs who keep my covenants…I will give in my house…a name, better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be taken away.

There were apparently also intimations of homosexual relationships in the bible.

See 1 Sam Chap 18-20, 2 Sam I:26 for the relationship between Jonathan and David:

“…the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, & Jonathan loved him as his own soul…” (1 Sam 18:1)

” Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul” (1 Sam 19:17)

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Sam:1:26).

Depending on the version used (the one I quoted above is NKJV), the depth of the relationship differs– the NIV version claims that it was a relationship between best friends. Whichever it is, it begs the question of what exactly about homosexual relationship is prohibited.

I have heard different intepretations of Lev and Romans but will not propose to address them here. (Lev refers to the “Holiness Code” when Moses was bringing his people to the promised land and were surrounded by people who indulged in paganistic practices and idolatry while Romans is linked to Lev). Contrary to what others may think, the bible is actually a moving account of love, compassion, inclusiveness and humanity. The underlying theme from the Old Testament to the New Testament is encapsulated in Jesus’ words:

Matt 22:36-40: Teacher what is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul & with all your mind This is the first & great commandment. And the second is like ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these 2 commandments hang all the law & the Prophets.

I think that before we stand up what what is right and just, in particulary for christians, we have to establish that what we stand up for is indeed the truth. I am not saying that the above is the truth but in the light of so many questionable points, it is really impossible to make a clear stand on this matter.

Finally in Rom 12:9-21 of the behaviour of a christian is stated thus:
“…Be kindly and affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honour giving preference to one another…Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion…If it is possible, live peaceably with all men…Do not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.”

I am a liberal christian

Very interesting perspective to look at, the government’s position to retain 377A and the questions that it raises from the aspect of law and its integrity, placed in the context of harm and culpability.

I guess there are many ways to look at this issue, whether you are a social conservatist, liberal, libertarian, moralist, humanist, heterosexual or even a homosexual yourself, the issue will not just go away simply because it wasn’t repealed in the parliament, whenever or wherever there are homosexuals within our borders, this penal code would still apply to them, and penalising them whether from a social or legal context in Singapore (Even if our law enforcement agency would not uphold them).

From the legal aspect, should a law which would not be upheld be retained in the first place? That is the very question that Prof Michael Hor is trying to ask in the first place. Consider this, given that 377A is not upheld, what gives the future government, considering a particularly vile one is being elected, would stop them from not upholding other laws that might possibly grant them private economic gains? Such as not upholding our Anti-Corruption Law?

By not upholding a written criminal code brings our law into disrepute, bordering upon travesty under such circumstances without proper legal writings that would provide law enforcement agencies the ambit to act under the right situation. And from that perspective, does that mean that conservative citizens of Singapore upon reporting their homosexual neighbours of an act of gross indecency in private, and our police would not act simply because our government says so? Or would the homosexual couple not be charged under 377A? What are the consequences given such circumstances, could the police, public prosecutors, or even our attorney general have the authority to say that they would not bring charges against them?

That I believe is what we should consider under the sphere of discussion as proposed by the author of this article.

Best Regards,
Azmodeus

May I ask if you are straight ? Are you attacj=hed to a girl or married with children ?
Thanks.

Man-woman is the only combination that I perceive as PREFECT match.

Can someone please give me a positive reply pls.

*Psylence, this blog site is not for you to solicit information or recommendations on incest. If that is what you are interested in, please go somewhere else. An open forum is not a free for all. You will be under moderation from now on and your posts may never appear here.

So there’s nothing wrong with the evil of gambling (which by the way,I believe Jesus took personal action to upturn some of them which were operating close to the temple.) as opposed to the act of expressing your love for someone.