Same sex marriage

As Australia faces a postal survey on same-sex marriage, we are seeing a steady stream of articles arguing the Yes or No case.

Many on the No side are prone to citing the Bible or appealing to "biblical values". But what does the Bible actually say about human sexuality and homosexuality in particular?

What follows represents a summary of critical biblical scholarship on the issue.

Critical biblical scholarship draws on a range academic disciplines including literary criticism, archaeology, history, philology, and social science to offer the most plausible, historically grounded interpretation of the Bible. It is not simply a matter of personal belief or citing official church doctrine.

Australian scholars are among leaders in the field when it comes to sexuality and the Bible. William Loader has written several books on the matter and this Anglican collection of essays is also excellent.

When it comes to homosexuality there are, at most, six passages of the Bible that are relevant. So what do these passages say?

Genesis 19 and Leviticus

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is well known. This is where the terms "sodomite" and "sodomy" originate, and it has long been associated with biblical condemnation of male homosexual sex. It is, however, actually about gang-rape.

In this story, the men of Sodom seek to rape two visitors (who are actually angels). Their host, Lot, defends them and offers them protection in his house, but offers his virgin daughters to be raped in their place.

Note to Margaret Court

Margaret Court is wrong to claim marriage is "a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible," writes Robyn Whitaker.

It is a deeply problematic and complex story that warrants an article of its own, but what is clear is that sexual violence and rape is harshly condemned, and so God destroys the town with sulphur and fire.

Despite the linguistic history of the word "sodomite", Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality or mutually consenting adults of the same gender expressing their desire and love.

Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) seem more pertinent. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an "abomination".

We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male. It is not describing what we would understand to be a sexual orientation.

We might also note the inherent sexism here: women apparently don't have the same desire or their sexuality is deemed too insignificant to be worthy of comment.

Again, we need some context. Yes, this verse clearly condemns adulterous homosexual sex in calling it an "abomination" (to'ebah), but here are all the other things also called an "abomination" in the Bible:

• Egyptians eating with Hebrews;
• having an image of another god in your house;
• sacrificing your child to the god Molech;
• having sex with your wife when she is menstruating;
• taking your wife's sister as a second wife; and
• eating pork.

Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard.

As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend).

To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical and goes against the grain of the text itself.

These two verses in Leviticus are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities.

The New Testament

The remainder of the biblical references occur in the New Testament, written between approximately 50 and 110 CE in the context of the Roman Empire. The attitudes and norms of Graeco-Roman culture are critical in understanding these texts.

In Graeco-Roman society, there was an acceptance that men might be attracted to other men. Even if married (to a woman) and often prior to marriage, a wealthy man might have a young male lover or male partner.

In educational settings, several ancient authors comment on the male-male mentoring that often included pederasty (sex with boys).

The main ancient objection to male-male sexual activity was that one partner had to take the "woman's role" of being penetrated. In a patriarchal society, to be masculine was to be the active partner, whereas to be passive was deemed feminine and shameful.

These attitudes find their way into the New Testament in various forms. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 list a wide group of people who will not "inherit the Kingdom" without changing.

Why some are boycotting the postal vote

While many same-sex marriage campaigners are calling for young people in particular to get their names on the electoral rolls, others are boycotting the vote altogether.

Paul is using a standard list of vices here to make a wider rhetorical point.

Where some English translations might include "homosexuality" on this list, the translation is not that simple, which is why various English words are used (adulterer, immoral persons, prostitutes).

The Greek word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 means "soft" or "effeminate" and captures the Graeco-Roman distaste at a man taking a "female" role. In the Bible it is commonly used to describe fancy clothing, and outside the Bible was a term for cult prostitutes.

The word arsenokoites is rarer. Scholars have debated whether it refers to male prostitution or pederasty or something else. To translate it as "homosexual" is problematic for two reasons: it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation and he was certainly not describing a committed adult relationship.

In Romans 1:26-27, Paul condemns people swapping out their usual partner for one of the same gender. He claims this is a result of idolatry and uses it as part of his argument for why one should only follow (his) God.

It is typical of the strong "them and us" rhetoric of the ancient world, serving a larger argument and is not a statement on sexuality per se.

As New Testament scholar Sean Winter summarises:

"Paul shares a stereotypical Jewish distrust of Graeco-Roman same sex activity, but is simply not talking about loving partnerships between people with same sex orientation."

Considering the context

We need to put all this in perspective. These are six verses out of more than 31,000 verses or roughly 0.016 per cent of the text.

In contrast, the Bible contains more than 2,000 verses about money (and related issues of greed, wealth, loans, and property), and more than 100 specifically on one's obligation to care for widows.

In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers.

For certain Christian groups to make this the decisive Christian issue is simply a misreading of biblical values.

Lest readers think the Bible is against sexuality generally, there is an entire biblical book devoted to celebrating human sexual desire. Written in the style of a Mesopotamian love poem, the Song of Songs(sometimes called Song of Solomon), speaks positively of both female and male sexual yearning.

Serious Christians cannot ignore the Bible. They can, however, make sure that they interpret it with all the tools available to them, that they examine their own biases, and stop over-simplifying the issues.

The Bible offers a wide variety of marriage arrangements, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly.

It does, however, give us an ethic to guide how we treat one another: an ethic based upon God's generous love and a profound concern for justice.

Robyn J Whitaker is Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.

Truth??

The former president of the Human Rights Commission has accused Australian governments of succumbing to “post-truth” politics in which evidence based policy is rejected in favour of populist decision making that “responds to fear.”

Professor Gillian Triggs today said Australian governments had resorted to populism when it came to the issues of asylum-seekers, refugees and terrorism.

She suggested the same-sex marriage debate was also taking place in the new “post-truth” climate and disputed claims there were insufficient protections for religious freedoms.

Speaking at the Australian National University in Canberra, Professor Triggs said that religious freedoms were upheld in the constitution and took a swipe at The Australian newspaper for its coverage of the debate.

“If you read the constitution you would know that there’s a provision in the constitution — a rare provision in the constitution for human rights,” she said. “And that protects the right to freedom of religious expression.”

“It’s one of the best protected rights under Australian law. Yet we now have a full on daily campaign to argue that we do not have the right of adequate protection of religious freedom in this country.”

Professor Triggs was delivering a speech earlier today on the future of social policy making at the Power to Persuade Symposium directed by UNSW Canberra.

She used the platform to lash out at the ethics of public servants, warned against the rise of executive government and defended her controversial report into children in immigration detention.

“A culture of post-truth has enabled government and parliament to reject evidence based reports by credible agencies in favour of populist decision making that denies the truth and responds to fear,” she said. “And this is particularly the case in relation to refugees and asylum-seekers; to terrorism; to conflict and to criminal matters in general.”

She accused the Coalition government of politicising her Forgotten Children inquiry, arguing that the political messaging around deaths at sea and boat turn-backs made it hard for the report to cut through.

“No other country in the world mandates the detention, in practical terms, indefinitely for many, of asylum-seekers and refugees including children,” she said. “The government rejected the report and said it was biased on the false ground that the inquiry should have been brought earlier when the Labor Party was in power.”

“It was never about the fact of detention. It was about the long-term medical physical and mental health impacts (for children),” she said. “Holding children in detention was not a deterrent to people-smugglers.”

“Talking of truth and persuasion, one of the greatest myths that we had so much trouble dealing with, is the myth that you need to treat people in these inhuman and illegal ways in order to stop the boats and to save drownings at sea.”

Professor Triggs also accused some bureaucrats of providing unethical advice to government ministers — advice she said was inconsistent with Australia’s international treaty obligations.

“I think there has been a definite trend in Australia for public servants to be more concerned about doing what the minister has asked them to do ... I think that they have not always met the ethical underpinnings of good government,” she said.

To make her case, she cited a move by the government to make a retrospective change to the Migration Act allowing it to transfer to Nauru a female Bangladeshi woman who was found to be a genuine refugee.

She said the change to the Migration Act was made as the government was staring down a High Court challenge. “Within two or three weeks of the litigation getting to the High Court they passed a piece of legislation retrospectively to provide a basis on which she (the refugee) could be returned to Nauru,” Professor Triggs said.

“My question is — who are the lawyers, who are the public servants who are drafting these laws and advising a minister that it’s possible to retrospectively to pass laws of this kind?”

“If you are a practising barrister and solicitor in NSW and Victoria you have an obligation under the codes of conduct for the profession to act not only ethically but, believe it or not, consistently with human rights.”

“How can the public service produce this kind of advice to a minister? Who drafted this legislation? And is that advice being given to the minister that it is unethical … under Australian law due to our duty of care and contrary to our international treaty obligations.”

Professor Triggs also identified what she said was an “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” growth in executive decision making, saying this was contrary to the principle of the separation of powers.

‘We’ve seen a corresponding diminution in the role of the courts,” she said. “As a lawyer, that is something that I am especially concerned about.”

Doctor 25 May17

I visited the GP and she said:

 

1  that people who have experienced abuse in childhood often have fibromyalgia ... so my chronic pain is not unusual.

2 that my experiences have left me with a high degree of empathy

Diary 11Apr17

I'm changing the purpose of this blog .... till now it's been a rant blog but I've realised that it's the best way to make a daily record of my activities.

So..... today ....
EFTPOS terminal
Reconcile CWBC cc
Payslip for Nat
Expense record

Normality

The other day the lunchtime conversation topic revolved around school experiences, tertiary study, work etc.  I listened to the common themes of student life ..... study life ..... and my inside voice was screaming at me .... my experiences were utterly different .... tales of student gathering ..... I had no friendly experience that I can recall .... instead I remember the aching loneliness of going into lectures and wondering where to sit that wouldn't result in pain and rejection.  

The table conversation delved into study habits and exam cramming ..... my memories are of feeling completely confused and useless .... not having even the most basic idea of what I was supposed to be doing.  ..... of reaching the time of exams and knowing that I knew absolutely nothing.

At the table I sat listening .... and thinking "This is normal life that I'm hearing about .... my life has been nothing like it." How can systems fail so badly that children/adolescents can be left out so completely.

Ornery issues

I'm surrounded by people who refuse to try to get better.  One has leg pain similar to mine but he won't experiment with the medication to find a dosage that works .... he just says "I tried that medicine at XYZ dose and it didn't work" .... I know that it works at a different dosage but he won't try it.

Another just complains and won't try to find remedies .... apparently it's better to make life miserable for other people.

18c

Since when did the person spouting racist hate speech become the victim?

We didn't need to have another inquiry to figure out that 18C is a necessary law. That fact was established 25 years ago. The overwhelming finding of that National Inquiry into Racist Violence was this: many victims considered the sub-physical forms of racial violence -- the insults, intimidation, harassment and aggression -- had a more severe impact than actual cases of physical assault. The violence of words could be as debilitating as physical violence.

The psychological effect of continual exposure to abusive and insulting language cannot be overlooked. Racial hate speech can result in insecurity and depression, preventing people from participating fully in society.

A major hurdle for this early inquiry into racist violence was that people who had experienced it were too afraid to come out and talk about it. Some said they feared retribution. Others said that nothing could be done to make the racial violence -- the abuse, insults, and harassment -- stop, so they'd rather not draw any attention to themselves. The inquiry had to create an outreach program to assure them they would be safe to talk.

Racial hate speech can result in insecurity and depression, preventing people from participating fully in society.

Through this early inquiry they also found that verbal violence often precedes physical violence. So section 18C was born. It functioned well for 25 years before being attacked by the Abbott and Turnbull Governments.

In those 25 years, only 1.8 percent of racial vilification complaints have ended up in court. Most are withdrawn, rejected or, most often, conciliated by the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Andrew Bolt, Bill Leak, and QUT cases may have dominated the news cycle in recent years, but the latter two cases were withdrawn and dismissed respectively. We'll get to Bolt.

Opponents of 18C like to stylise themselves as champions of 'free speech', and will point to the Bill Leak case to declare that 18C is broken. But the Bill Leak case proves the exact opposite. That case was withdrawn, but even if the case had progressed to court, it would have failed because section 18C does not function alone. There is section 18D, which defends statements that are in the public interest, in creative works, in debate or if they are genuinely held belief. Even though Bill Leak's cartoon was tasteless, and offensive to many, 18D covers artistic purpose.

Twenty percent of Australians say they have been subject to verbal racial abuse. That figure soars to 90 percent for Aboriginal Australians.

What's not covered by 18D?

Let's take the famous Andrew Bolt case. Bolt lost the case for two of his articles. In one of the articles, titled 'It's so hip to be black', he individually names several fair-skinned Aboriginal people saying they only claimed their Aboriginal heritage for personal benefit.

He did not lose this 18C case because he questioned issues of Aboriginal identity, as he claims. That conversation might have been found to be of genuine public interest, and covered by 18D. The court ruled his articles unlawful because they contained "erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language."

Twenty percent of Australians say they have been subject to verbal racial abuse. That figure soars to 90 percent for Aboriginal Australians. This law provides assurance to Australians of all backgrounds that, in the eyes of the law, they are not fair game. It says that public acts of racism are not tolerated. But this inquiry has sent the message that, under a Liberal government, the right to racial hate speech must be protected.

There's a sentiment that running through this debate that says racial hate speech is "just words".

Tell that to the woman who comes home in tears because she was abused on a train. Tell that to the child who is trembling because they've just watched their parents be harassed at the shops.

Since when did the person spouting racist hate speech become the victim?