Why are gay men worse than lesbians?

[Lycan]

I belong to several religious forums and have noticed that christians that spout about homosexuality are more times than not, complaining about gay men. How sinnful it is and whatnot. Why is being a homosexual male more "sinnful" than being a lesbian? Is it really an issue of being a sin, or is it more the "ook" factor?

[steen]

What do you think Jesus will say to his name being used to justify discrimination and self-righteous bigotry?

[jerickson314]

I see the male pronouns, but what I don't see are commandments to specific genders.

OK, try something else from the same chapter.

The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Does this mean it is OK for women to have sexual relations with their dads? Of course not. Verse 16 is the only one I can find in this part of the chapter where women are mentioned (besides being involved when the men sin).

In English, male pronouns are often used because there is no "universal" or gender neutral pronoun in the language, though recently there is the vogue of using the singular "they". I would assume Hebrew is the same. Leveticus doesn't use pronouns, it uses nouns (man, woman) to refer directly to the different sexes.

I am pretty sure this is the case.

There is no question of what "man" is referring to in this instance because it can only mean one thing. It is not gender neutral. (You might notice the example you gave also begins with "for everyone".

Right, as with verse 11 (where the "for everyone" is not the case).

Actually, the second word used for "man" in the Leviticus passage means "male" and is even more clearly not gender neutral than "man". (I know this from debating someone who thought that this somehow implied temple prostitution but who offered incredibly weak support.)

However, the same-gender factor is the entire point of this verse. It isn't surprising that it was made clear that this is talking about two people of the same gender. One was chosen, rather than being redundant.

Plus, there is the extra support for this notion from the fact that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.

What, where it proposes the novel idea that lesbian women have sex with more men than do heterosexual women? The part which begins with the statement that lesbians are more at risk from STDS than heterosexuals, but uses as its reference an article that doesn't even mention STDs or gives a rate?

I guess http://www.narth.com/docs/riskfact.html might be a bit stronger?

Or maybe you mean the part about the psychological dangers of homosexuality for which enough evidence existed to the contrary for the American Psychological Organisation to declare homosexuality to no longer be a disorder, because it harmed no one, and many homosexuals were found to be perfecly well-adjusted?

You didn't hear about how gay activism prompted this decision, not research?

Allow me to say that very often, homosexual as a whole is opposed because of arguments made only against male homosexuality, and I believe this is a cultural thing, with male homosexuals being a more prominent part of our society. What's more, television shows seem to focus often on gay males, though usually showing effeminate stereotypes instead of Joe the secretly gay banker.

Right. Gay males do seem to get more attention.

[Corvus]

I see the male pronouns, but what I don't see are commandments to specific genders.

OK, try something else from the same chapter.

The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Does this mean it is OK for women to have sexual relations with their dads? Of course not.

Would "the man who lies with his father's wife" mean those who are remarried? Were remarriages even allowed back then without the couple being sentenced to death? It just seems curious that that particular term would be used instead of "the man who lies with his mother"...

To answer your question, judging from the commandment alone, yes it would seem okay, until we scroll down and see that:

12: If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed incest, their blood is upon them.

I can't see anything condemning blood relations specifically, but I'm sure that's covered in another chapter. Leviticus is never really vague about what can and can't be done. I suppose one might make the argument that Leviticus only deals with prohibitions that are punishable, which is why every commandment in chapter 20 is followed by what should be done in that particular circumstance; usually putting everyone involved and maybe everyone who had seen it to death. The fact that Leviticus never describes a punishment for lesbian encounters should give some indication that if it really is wrong, it isn't as biblically wrong as a man lying with another man.

However, the same-gender factor is the entire point of this verse. It isn't surprising that it was made clear that this is talking about two people of the same gender. One was chosen, rather than being redundant.

I don't think so. God certainly tries to cover as many bases as he possibly can in that book. I think only men were written about because it's the most obvious crime. In earlier ages, most people didn't think women could really do anything between themselves, and even if they did, it's not really penetration and therefore not really sex. I presume the Hebrews felt the same way about it, if they were indeed aware of it at all. Er, I mean if God was aware of it at all.

Plus, there is the extra support for this notion from the fact that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.

Granted.

What, where it proposes the novel idea that lesbian women have sex with more men than do heterosexual women? The part which begins with the statement that lesbians are more at risk from STDS than heterosexuals, but uses as its reference an article that doesn't even mention STDs or gives a rate?

I guess http://www.narth.com/docs/riskfact.html might be a bit stronger?

Not really. This one says nothing about STDs and focusses on lifestyle. I don't really need to say correlation does not imply causation, and the article itself identifies that these mental risks come not from the condition of homosexuality, but from: the idea--common to nearly every other study that has found negative factors associated with homosexuality--that high-risk lifestyles among lesbians are likely due to pressures resulting from society's disapproval.

I'm not exactly sure what kind of message NARTH wants to send when they follow up an article on how much more depressed lesbians are than male homosexuals with another article that states most studies on the depression of homosexuals are created with an eye to increase funding. Maybe there's not much risk at all, or it's exaggerated?

Besides, I think this line of the discussion has ceased to be relevant to this particular topic.

Or maybe you mean the part about the psychological dangers of homosexuality for which enough evidence existed to the contrary for the American Psychological Organisation to declare homosexuality to no longer be a disorder, because it harmed no one, and many homosexuals were found to be perfecly well-adjusted?

You didn't hear about how gay activism prompted this decision, not research?

Oh, I've heard it claimed very often by those who don't agree with the decision, I've just never seen it proven. Didn't the work of people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey account for anything?

[melikio]

Allow me to say that very often, homosexual as a whole is opposed because of arguments made only against male homosexuality, and I believe this is a cultural thing, with male homosexuals being a more prominent part of our society. What's more, television shows seem to focus often on gay males, though usually showing effeminate stereotypes instead of Joe the secretly gay banker.

You basically hit the nail on the head.

Also, many men (Christian or not), enjoy the idea of 2 women "doing" one another. And little or nothing is said about it, really. I've seen many "straight" men secretly advocate their approval of "beautiful" lesbian sex. Usually, not of the typical, well-defined, "that's wrong", "they should be beaten/punished"...etc. You usually see something more like a gentle wink, accompanied by tongues hanging from their heads. 8)

Of course, I don't argue with this (as a gay man), I just take note that there are deeper aspects to the acceptance of non-standard sexual relations, than MANY men are completely honest about. More specifically, people aren't honest and open about sex, they often wear whatever veneer if socially-acceptable.

If homosexuality is "wrong", it's wrong. But people are less than honest when it comes to the social preferences assigned to what they truly view as pleasurable or desireable. (People WILL LIE, to look good; it is natural for many to cover their hypocrisy with any manner of justification.) When it comes to human sexual behaviors, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors to navigate, where it comes to people in general.

-Mel-