Gays vs. Christians?

The debate over Indiana's "religious freedom" law has drawn in stark relief a meme that's been around for awhile: it's gays and their allies (which apparently include everyone except evangelical Christians) against Christianity. Now, anyone who stops to think for a minute is going to realize this is bullshit. I've run across a couple of posts in the past few days that point this up quite clearly.

Max Mills, in a very erudite post at AmericaBlog, goes through and discusses the very few references to homosexuality in the Bible, and how they have been interpreted -- or misinterpreted. He starts off with "abomination":

The Hebrew word, to’ebah, is most accurately understood to mean “that which goes against the accepted order”. Dr. Friedman offers several examples in his book, The Bible Now:

“…in the Bible the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they are cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians do not eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and do not find it offensive. See also the story of the exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.

He gives several more examples, all of which point to the fact that the "abominations" in the Old Testament are really no more than things that depart from accepted custom.

He also gives us the real story on the "sin of Sodom."

In a post at Mahablog, Barbara O'Brien points up an essential fact:

A number of religious groups, including Christian ones, have spoken out in opposition of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law and call it plain old bigotry. Here’s a roundup. I’d already mentioned the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Indiana Episcopal diocese, and other denominations speaking out in support of equal treatment for LGBT people include the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. I’m betting the BJCRL doesn’t include Southern Baptists, but still … also the Unitarian Universalists, the Sikh Coalition, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

The dichotomy we’re seeing is a faction of hyper-reactionary religionists — some of whom are about as genuinely religious as the Las Vegas strip — versus everybody else. Let’s keep that straight.

Both posts are worth reading in full.

Now, the lesson to be learned from this is one that I've found myself repeating again and again lately, to the point where I'm getting a little tired of it, but here it is again, with a slight variation: In the sacred texts, teachings, and doctrines of any religion, you can find something to justify what you wanted to do anyway -- or something that can be interpreted to justify what you wanted to do.

I'm also a bit more cynical about motivations, and just want to point out that for some -- Family Research Council, American Family Association, National Organization for Marriage -- anti-gay is a big cash cow. I point this out because in American politics, it's always a good idea to follow the money if you want to know what's really going on.