On Homosexuality (1/2)

[I have a few drafts on various topics queued up; this particular one, which has a followup I'll work on finalizing soon, seemed particular apt in light of the APA repudiating "ex-gay" therapies this week.]

Another thing that drove me away from Christianity for so long was the open and unyielding condemnation of gays by so many Christians and their churches. (I am straight. That ought to be immaterial here, but I'm sure someone will wonder.)

So, there's two verses that are frequently quoted to "prove" that homosexual lovin' is wrong in God's eyes.

The first is from Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Which seems fairly straight-forward, I admit, only I still have some problems with how it's applied.

First of all, Christians have discarded a lot of the rules laid down in the Old Testament. With the exception of the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament rules are not generally followed by mainstream modern Christians, as we generally think of them as having been superceded by Christ's coming and his teachings.

I mean, I don't know about you, but I have yet to run into anyone making a big deal about the sin of having sex with a woman who is having her period. Yet:

If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.—Leviticus 20:18

There it is, just a few verses away. Why isn't this sin being preached against? Seems strange. Granted, we're only supposed to exile, not kill, these people, but... you'd think I'd hear more about it.

Of course, there's also the fact that Leviticus starts off: "The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites:" Which to me sounds like injunctions to a specific set of people that Christians are not. We've certainly discarded other parts of Leviticus (for instance, we don't feel compelled to keep kosher). I have a hard time with the idea that somehow, out of the entire chapter, the only thing that actually matters is whether or not guys are sleeping with other guys. After all, the same chapter condemns adultery and requires death for the guilty parties. Yet we forgive adulterers (even sometimes preachers) all the time, and we certainly don't forbid joining churches based on it or try to get laws passed forbidding adulterers from marrying again.

Of course, there's also the other verse Christians tend to use to justify their attitudes towards homosexuality, and that one's in the New Testament.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.—I Corinithians 6: 9-10

That one seems fairly straight-forward as well, but again, I'm still having some issues here with the way that somehow, in that sentence, the people who tend to preach hardest against homosexuality seem to have a version of the Bible in which 'homosexual offenders' is written in extremely large, bold, hot pink type, but 'greedy' and 'drunkards' is so small they skip right over it.

Paul is condemning all sorts of sinners here, in other words. So why do I not see people picketing with signs that say "God hates drinkers"? Why isn't there widespread opposition to corporate greed, to the point of trying to enact laws against it? Why don't we have "ex-adulterer" ministries? Why don't we openly refuse to allow thieves to join churches?

Or, all of that in a nutshell: Why are people focussed so heavily on the 'homosexual' part of that verse, but generally silent about the rest?

I don't have an answer. I wonder if they do.