Fallacies fascinate me.

They're not particularly interesting for what they are (you've seen one ad-homen argument, you've seen 'em all) but for what they imply about the one writing them.

In this case, I was intrigued by the arguments offered in article, whose purpose is to apparently to reassure readers that the bible has no problem with homosexual behavior.

So my primary intention here is NOT to argue whether homosexuality is good, bad, or otherwise. Instead, I only wish to examine their arguments about it for logical soundness (which is different than being correct, mind you) and then offer a few thoughts about motive. If you don't enjoy a argument-by-argument debunking of a prominent gay-rights groups' exposition on the bible and homosexuality, you might just want to skip down to the conclusion.

Or read something else entirely.

Otherwise, if you're in for this sort of thing...

Genesis tells us nothing about God's intentions for creation

Genesis (1-19) Traditional interpretations cite the creation story as evidence that God intended men and women to come together to propagate the Earth... Newer interpretations assert that the creation story is not meant to present a paradigm for all human relationships but simply to answer the question, Where do we come from? as the Rev. Peter J. Gomes, preacher and professor of Christian morals at Harvard University, wrote in The Good Book (William Morrow, 1996.)

(1) The underlying assumption is false: One crucial underlying assuption is that newer ideas and interpretations are always more correct. Is that so? Certainly this tends to be true in hard sciences like physics. But does Peter Gomes, who has a vested interest in the matter, possess some new evidence about the motivations of the author of the Jewish Torah? None is given here.

(2) The immediate context disagrees: To the contrary, the aforementioned sections of Genesis do indeed present God's intentions for creation: "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky... let them serve as signs... it was good." (Gen 1:14-19) This kind of language isn't simply addressing what is happening, but whether it is God's intention, and whether it is, in fact, "good."

And the same language is used regarding human sexuality: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." That's not a mere sequence of events, but rather an explanation as to why woman is different from man: woman is "suitable" for man in a way his own gender is apparently not -- and undoubtedly vise-versa.

Regardless of how we feel about homosexuality, it's simply false to assert, as HRC does, that this section of the bible has no interest in presenting God's intentions and preferences for creation.

(3) The broader context also disagrees: See the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (below) for hints that the author of Genesis didn't think male/male relations were normative.

(4) Jesus disagrees: ... which should be important for Christians. When citing this passage, Jesus didn't simply say that it described how we got here. Contrary to HRC's assertions, he offered this passage as the normative model for human sexual behavior (Matt 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-10).

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah contains no reference to sex

They also cite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (19:1-9) as proof that God will destroy those communities that permit homosexual behavior.

Straw man: this story is not cited as proof that God will destroy each such community -- just that the God depicted in this book doesn't view that sort of behavior positively.

Why does HRC replace the typical, more reasonable argument being offered ("the God depicted by the author of Genesis clearly didn't like homosexuality, as evidenced by his destruction of Sodom") with an irrational, overreaching one ("this proves all such cities will be destroyed")?

My guess is that the typical argument is harder to answer.

Scholars of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, meanwhile, observe that the sin of Sodom is never specifically identified but, rather, deduced from the phrase “to know,” which is used 943 times in the Old Testament and, on only 10 occasions, used to refer to sex, according to Gomes.

HRC is clearly hoping nobody reading this owns a bible, or will look in it:

Before they [Lot's guests] had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with ['know'] them."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. (Genesis 19)

Clearly given Lot's offer of his virgin daughters (and the men's violent threat to "treat you worse"!) "know" has nothing at all to do with sex. Why, I'm sure the men of Sodom were threatening Lot because they wanted to have a good conversation with his guests, after dark, at bedtime! And that they'd have an even more, uh, vigorous "conversation" with Lot and his other kin if he didn't hand them over soon.

Jesus said nothing about Law

Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) Traditional interpretations cite these passages as self-evident condemnation: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

But Gomes and others have asked: How can people cite such passages as alleged evidence of God's condemnation of homosexuality when they dismiss most of the other rules from Leviticus - such as those calling for the death of children who curse their parents and of adults who commit adultery - as archaic and insupportable?

The cited passage of Leviticus has two parts. In the first, it describes male/male sexual contact as "an abomination", and the second describes the penalty God wanted ancient Jews to apply in such cases. I'm not sure if Gomes and HRC are aware of this, but the two parts are separable: whether something is morally wrong is a different question than whether it should be illegal or punished.

Consider the law regarding adultery: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Lev 20:10) Again, this tells us both that God wasn't happy with adultery, and that the penalty for this sin, in ancient Israel, was death.

But Jesus introduced mercy. Mercy applies when a person has been found guilty ("justice") but has admitted it was wrong and is willing to change, and asks for the penalty to be lightened or removed. For example, when a woman was being stoned to death for adultery, Jesus saved her life, but also affirmed that her adultery was indeed sinful: "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:11)

So my answer to Gomes is that Jesus demonstrated that the old penalties did not necessarily apply. But that doesn't mean -- as Jesus again made clear -- that God suddenly had no problem with those behaviors. Just as we wouldn't suddenly say that children cursing their parents -- or adultery -- are now good and helpful, neither we would say homosexual acts are suddenly a righteous behavior. Just because we don't stone someone to death today doesn't imply a behavior can't still be immoral.

Gomes is a "professor of Christian morals" -- and yet he's never had this explained to him?

Men have never loved one sexually ever before. Ever.

Paul’s Letters (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27) Traditional interpretations again present the following passage as self-evident of God’s condemnation of homosexuality:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27)

But more recent interpretations note that this fails to account for the fact that the sexual practices between men that existed 2000 years ago typically took the form of prostitution, not mutual loving relationships. Therefore, these scholars argue, one may not conclude that Paul was condemning something that only came into open existence within our century.

Human nature didn't just receive a radical change in 1900. If was not possible for one man to "love" another in the way which men typically "love" women, then we're also admitting there was no such thing as a "homosexual orientation" before 1900. Which is an interesting admission for HRC to make.

But HRC is just being silly here: There were plenty of non-prostitution same-gendered sexual contacts in the ancient world. In fact, contrary to HRC's assertions, the very passage cited here ("women were consumed with passion for one another") refers to mutual, uncoerced attraction -- not prostitution. Their counter-evidence was right in front of them.

Conversely, Paul's language elsewhere refers explicitly and disparagingly to male-male genital contact, and likewise, the language in Leviticus (which would have formed his views) also merely refers to the act of a man lying with another man -- with no discussion of the emotional or mental state or feelings accompanying those acts.

And, of course, the vast majority of homosexual acts today (particularly male/male) are motivated more by lust than a deep Christ-informed concern for the ultimate best interest of this evening's partner(s) -- so the whole argument (even ignoring the contradictory internal evidence) is a bit specious anyway.

Conclusion

These arguments aren't just minor mistakes: they're colossally wrong. Often, they can be refuted by simply looking at the passages in question. I presume the assurance that "scholars" have decided the matter for us is meant to steer the reader away from checking for him or herself.

Whatever we think of homosexuality in comptemporary society, let's at least be honest: Jesus and the authors of the bible shared the traditional Jewish belief that homosexual contact was wrong and sinful.

So why not just attack the bible outright? Why not just assert: "Well, that dusty old book doesn't tell us anything about how we should live today."? Why try to offer these ridiculous and even tortured arguments which attempt to suggest, somehow, that two men having anal sex -- and demanding it be called good -- wouldn't have offended the sensibilities of Moses, Jesus, and Paul?

My guess is that HRC doesn't want to come across as anti-Christian. Or perhaps that some of them are, or are sympathetic to, those who are trying to embrace and alter Christianity, turning it into a weapon for use against those with a traditional understanding.

Or perhaps they simply understand that the bible still has too much cultural clout to be challenged head on, and thus spin the issue as one of "interpretation" -- where the erroneous "interpetation" consists of failing to overlook important passages, or failing to add new things to them.

Either way, it makes for some pretty silly arguments.

Afterthought

An important part of the Christian life is the realization that our very "nature" -- that is, our natural set of inclinations -- is something that is often wrong, and something we must often struggle against. I've personally never had to struggle with same-gender attraction, but, being single, I've also never been in a situation where my own sexual desires could be satisfied, morally.

I understand that HRC may want to give comfort to Christians (and Jews) who struggle with desires which some people call sinful. I understand: when I walk into a bar full of beautiful women, I have a lot of the same impulses which are no more moral. But part of growing up is realizing that you have desires, which can be a huge part of you, which might not be right -- and which we must learn to control. That includes lust, but it also include hunger, anger, envy, pride, insecurity, wanting to blame someone else, and a dozen other completely natural motivations.

I can't say I'm there either -- sexually or otherwise -- but this business of lying in order to justify ourselves is not a helpful step along the path.

God's grace to you, my brothers and sisters.