Essay:Homosexual acts are not on the same level as eating shellfish, and so?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by Human.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

This is a commentary on Essay:Homosexuality Is Not On The Same Level As Eating Shellfish by HeartOfGold

First, this article totally has a place here, I don't want to sound like I think it doesn't. That said, although HG is making a rather fine and exact point that is valid is a certain way, it is also meaningless. Let me try to explain, if I can do so as clearly as I think I have figured this out in my head.

I'll start here (this thing does go 'round in circles!) The perhaps valid point he makes is that Leviticus places different emphases on the proscribed behaviours of bedding with another man and munching yummy shrimp, and hence the "God Hates Shrimp" meme is a quote mine and therefore invalid.

That's as well as may be, but it's also an intentional exaggeration to make a valid point. The debate starts in one and only one place: some people claim homosexual acts are an abomination to God, and they cite Leviticus to "prove" their point. To me, this is a non-argument, since I do not think the bible is the word of god. Any god. Even God. But, and this is where the parody, the exaggeration comes into play. Someone comes to me and tells me "you shall not do this, because in Lev. The Lord says it is an abomination". So I go open up my trusty KJV (some atheistic UCC revision), and turn to Lev. and read a couple of pages. And, yup, there it is, the thing about a man lying with another man as with a woman. There is also some other stuff. Actually, there are a lot of rules there. Among them are the often-cited "don't eat sea critters with fins or scales" and the one about mixed fabric.

Now, HG comes to me and says, sure, that's in there, but it's not the same. OK, I see that the Greek you dug up (or was it Hebrew) uses different words, so you must be right. So how is it that we can decide which of these proscriptions matter and which ones don't? What I mean is, if eating oysters is a "lesser" bad thing to God than boys diddling other boys, how much less bad is it? So not bad that it's ok? In other words, is it all right to eat sea critters without scales or fins? And if so, why?

And if not, if those rules are all meant to be kept, I surely hope those same people telling me their holy book says homosexuals acts are acts against their God, are also following all the other rules laid out there. And working to pass legislation to make them the law of the land, as well.

To sum up, after proving that the admonitions not to "do the Santorum" and not to eat scallops wrapped in bacon are different in some way, I want to know - what way?