Fenris the Fearless

Someone wrote:

How much clearer is men should not sleep with men as they would with women, God finds that detestable or where it says homosexuals will not inherit the for kingdom of God. What part of that is NOT clear?

Fenris replied:

I'll repeat what I posted in the prior thread, but also ask you how many of the Levitical proscriptions besides the one you believe applies to homosexuality do you follow yourself?

And what does the Bible say about hypocrisy?

Yes, the reference is to homosexual behavior, but it is taken completely out of cultural and linguistic context and does not refer to homosexuality, in general, as demonstrated by John Boswell, who writes:

"The only place in the Old Testament where homosexual acts per se are mentioned is Leviticus. [Quotation from Leviticus omitted] The Hebrew word ³toevah² [Hebrew omitted], here translated ³abomination,² does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. It is useful throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the phrase ³ toevah ha-goyimm,² ³the uncleanliness of the Gentiles. (e.g.2 [4] Kings 16.3). For example, in condemnations of temple prostitution involving idolatry in general a different word, ³zimah,² appears (e.g. lev. 19:29). Often ³toevha² specifically means ³idol,² and in connection with idolatry is patent even within the context regarding homosexual acts. Leviticus 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jew from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live, as its opening remarks make clear--²After the doings of the land of Egypt wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances² (3,KJV). And the prohibition of homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (also ³towevah²): ³And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God...² (231.KJV). Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest (and stated² 20:3-4) purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual ³cleanliness² whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. Although both chapters also contain prohibitions (e.g., against incest and adultery) which might seem to stem from moral absolutes, their function in the context of Leviitcus 18 and 20 seems to be as symbols of Jewish distinctiveness. This was certainly the interpretation given them by later Jewish commentaries, for example that of Maimonides. As moral imperatives the same matters are taken up elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., in Exod. 20 or Deut. 4 and 10) without the ritualistic conerns which appear to underly these chapters. The distinction between intrinsic wrong and ritual impurity is even more finely drawn by the Greek translation, which distinguishes in ³toevah² itself the separate categories of law or justice [Greek deleted] an infringements of ritual purity or monotheistic worship [Greek deleted]. The Levitical proscriptions of homosexuality fall in the latter category. In the Greek then, the Levitical enactments against homosexual behavior characterize it unequivocally as ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil. This was not lost on Greek-speaking theologians, many of whom considered that such behavior had been forbidden to the Jews as a part of their distinctive ethical heritage or because it was associated with idolatry, not as a part of the law regarding sexuality and marriage, which was thought to be a wider application. The irrelevance of the verses was further emphasized by the teachings of both Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation, it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted ³abomination² [Greek deleted] but the interior fidelity of the soul. Even where such subtleties were not well understood, however, the Levitical proscritions were not likely to have had much effect on early Christian morality. Within a few generations of the first disciples, the majority of converts to Christianity were not Jews, and their attitude toward ewish law was to say the least ambivalent. Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details. Romans and Greeks found Jewish dietary customs distasteful and squalid and had so profound an aversion to circumcision, the cornerstone of of Mosaic law, that large and often bloody conflicts resulted from their efforts to extirpate it. It would have been difficult to justify the impostition of only those portions of Leviticus which supporte personal prejudices, and even without circumcision it is difficult to imagine the wholesale adoption by the Graeco-Roman world of Levitical laws which prohibited the consumption of pork, shellfish, rabbit--all staples of Mediterranean diet--or of meats containing blood or fat. Thorough reaping and gleaning of fields, hybridization, clothing of more than one type of fabric, cutting of the beard or hair--all were condemned under Jewish law, and all were integral parts of life under the Empire. Viewed through the lenses of powerful modern taboos on the subject, the prohibition of homosexual relations may seem to have been of a different order: to those conditioned by social prejudice to regard homosexual behavior as uniquely enormous, the Levitical comments on this subject may seem to be of far greater weight than the proscriptions surrounding them. But the ancient world, as has been shown, knew no such hostility. The Old Testament strictures against same-sex behavior would have seemed to most Roman citizens as arbitrary as the prohibition of cutting the beard, and they would have had no reason to assume that it should receive any more attention than the latter. In fact, non-Jewish converts to Christianity found most of the provisions of Jewish law extremely burdensome, if not intolerable, and a fierce dispute racked the early church over whether Christians should be bound by it or not. The issue was finally resolved at the Council of Jersalem (ca. A.D. 49; see Acts 15). After a long and bitter debate within the highest ranks of the Christian community, it was decided that pagan converts to the Christian faith would not be bound by any requirements of the Mosaic law--including circumcision--with four exceptions: they were to ³abstain from pollutions of idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.² An apostolic letter was sent to Gentile Christians informing them of this decision and specifically censuring efforts of Jewish Christians to impose Jewish laws on them in these matters. Neither ³pollutions of idols² nor ³fornications² was or could be interpreted as referring to homosexuality. The former alluded to food which had been sacrificed to idols and as afterward often served at meals in pagan homes, as made clear in the apostolic letter itself (v.29) and elsewhere in the New Testment (e.g., Acts 21:25, 1 Cor. 8:10). Although there is some ambiguity about the Greek word [omitted] here translated a ³fornication,² it is clearly distinct from the term [omitted] under which the Levitical proscriptions of homosexuality are comprised. Homosexuality is nearly always distinguished from ³fornication² in patristic literature, although sometimes subsumed under ³adultery [Greek omitted]. In the New Testament itself (e.g. Cor. 6: and 1 Tim 1:10) each of the latter is listed as a category quite separate from the words which modern translators have taken to refer to homosexuality, and the word [Greek omitted] occurs in discussions of sexual immorality as a specific type of behavior, not as the general designation for such activity.² From John Boswell¹s ³Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality,² p. 100-104.

Cameron, pt.1

Elephant Man posted a bit of homophobic bile he found on the web:

Admittedly, these are Christian-backed studies, but Dr.Cameron does include references. But this is so unnecessary, and irr-elephant to the thread.

Cyn scoffed:

It's also bullshit propaganda.

Elephant Man smugly replied:

Be that as it may, I notice you have no evidence to refute it.

But Fenris did:

This document is a version of a special supplement to the March 10 edition of the News-Telegraph prepared for on- line distribution.The News-Telegraph is a semi-monthly newspaper for and about Gays and Lesbians, with offices in St. Louis and Kansas City, and serving Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, the southern two-thirds of Illinois and western Tennessee. Contact information is at the end of this document. Feel free to distribute this document in any format, as long as the News-Telegraph and the author is credited

THE MAN BEHIND THE MYTHS: A Report On The Chief Anti-Gay Researcher Of The Theocratic Right by Mark E. Pietrzyk

>> "Out of all the mass-murders in the US over the past seventeen years, homosexuals killed at least 68% of the victims."

>> "Homosexuals perpetrate between a third and a half of all recorded child molestations."

>> "37% of homosexuals engage in sado-masochism."

>> "29% of homosexuals urinate on their partners."

>> "17% ingest human feces."

>> "The average life span of a homosexual is 39 years; fewer than 2% survive to the age of 65."

These claims, as well as others no less slanderous to Gay people are beginning to appear with an alarming frequency in public debates over Lesbian and Gay rights. Whether in the form of a written report, speech, letter to the editor, or videotape, such statistics have the effect of lending scientific authority to anti-Gay stereotypes, and thus are proving to be a potent weapon in the theocratic right's "culture war" against Gays and Lesbians.However, few have bothered to trace these statistics to their original source: one Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute in Washington DC. Dr. Cameron is the chief researcher for the various anti-Gay organizations of the theocratic right. He was the scientific consultant for both the Oregon Citizens Alliance and Colorado for Family Values, as well as the producers of the videotape, The Gay Agenda. Cameron's degree in psychology is useful in providing credibility for his claims; but a close examination of Cameron's publications and statements reveals that not only is Cameron's "research" deeply flawed, but Cameron himself has a very dangerous policy agenda.

CAMERON'S BACKGROUND Until 1980, Dr. Paul Cameron was an instructor in psychology at the University of Nebraska. When his teaching contract was not renewed, Cameron devoted himself full-time to a think tank he had set up called the "Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality" (ISIS) in Lincoln, Nebraska. Under the auspices of this institute, Cameron touted himself as an expert on matters of sexuality, particularly on the societal consequences of homosexuality. Throughout the 1980s, Dr. Cameron's institute published a series of hysterical pamphlets variously entitled: Criminality, Social Disruption and Homosexuality; Child Molestation and Homosexuality; and Murder, Violence and Homosexuality. In these pamphlets, Cameron presented "findings" allegedly showing that homosexuals were disproportionately responsible for all sorts of heinous crimes, including serial killing, child molestation and bestiality.Shortly after making these claims, however, Cameron came under fire by a number of psychologists whom he had cited in his publications, including Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections---an expert on child molestation. Dr. Groth and other psychologists complained that Cameron was deliberately distorting or otherwise misrepresenting the results of their studies in order to support his agenda.In response to these complaints about Cameron from his fellow psychologists, the American Psychological Association launched an investigation of Cameron's research. The APA discovered that Cameron not only misrepresented other psychologists' findings, but that his own studies employed unsound methodologies. Citing Cameron's breach of the APA code of ethics, the APA expelled Cameron from its membership in December 1983. Cameron claimed that he had actually resigned before the APA expelled him, but APA bylaws prohibit members from resigning while they are under investigation.Cameron was also censured by the Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Midwest Sociological Society. In 1984, US District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer denounced Cameron for having made misrepresentations to the court in a case involving the Texas state sodomy law. Challenges to Cameron's credibility only seemed to spur Cameron to accelerate his anti-Gay activities. In 1987, Cameron moved to Washington DC and set up shop under the auspices of the Family Research Institute, a "non- profit Educational and Scientific Corporation." From this location, Cameron has continued to crank out his propaganda, periodically updating his brochures and aiming to influence the policy-making community. As Cameron has stated in one brochure, "Published scientific material has a profound impact on society... In a clash between theoretical ethics and hard, cold statistics, the data-linked opinion will always win. "THE NATURE OF CAMERON'S "RESEARCH" The original wrongdoing which led to Cameron's expulsion from the American Psychological Association---distortion and falsification of others' studies and employment of unsound methodologies---continue to be found in Cameron's current research studies. Indeed, Cameron often pads his brochures and articles with citations of his own previous studies, studies which have already been discredited. The 1983 Isis Survey Cameron's most oft-cited study is a survey of sexual and social behavior of 4340 adults in five American cities conducted by Cameron's Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in 1983. The results of this survey were subsequently published in a number of Cameron's pamphlets and in an article "Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order. "Cameron was initially inspired to conduct his 1983 ISIS survey shortly after he spearheaded a drive to defeat a Lesbian and Gay rights ordinance in Lincoln, Nebraska in1982. Making no effort to hide his objectives, Cameron told reporters before the results of the study were in that the purpose of his survey was to provide ammunition for activists wishing to overturn Gay and Lesbian rights laws. Sure enough, Cameron got the results he wanted.As anyone who has had a basic course in statistics knows, a survey study is valid only to the extent that one can be reasonably sure that one's sample is representative of the population as a whole. To that end, statisticians have developed a complex array of methodologies for ensuring that researchers acquire a sufficiently large, random sample to use as the basis of those studies. Sexuality surveys pose particular problems insofar as people are reluctant to share information about their personal habits and those who are personally conservative are least likely to willingly participate in such surveys. Cameron, however, apparently prefers to ignore these methodologies whenever it suits his purpose to do so.Consider his sampling method. Although Cameron was allegedly able to get thousands of heterosexuals to respond to his survey, he was only able to get 41 male homosexuals and 24 Lesbians to respond. The extremely small sample of Gays would in itself invalidate any attempts to draw conclusions about the sexual behavior of the Lesbian and Gay population. Yet this is precisely what Cameron does.Even worse, the extremely skewed results of Cameron's survey indicate that he did not even get an adequate random sample of heterosexuals either. According to his survey, 52% of male heterosexuals have shoplifted; 34% have committed a crime without being caught; 22% have been arrested for a crime; and 13% have served time in prison. Twelve percent of male heterosexuals have either murdered or attempted to murder another person. Any researcher who obtained these kinds of results for the American male heterosexual population would have given serious thoughts to tossing out his survey as tremendously flawed. Cameron, however, has chosen to use his survey results to depict Gays and Lesbians as essentially depraved and violent, while skirting over his bizarrely skewed findings on male heterosexuals.

Fenris