Pages

Saturday, December 09, 2006

An Anti-Heteronormative Reading of Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. Lev. 18:22

It is not good for man to be alone. -- Gen. 2:18

I just got back from services today, where I had the pleasure of listening to Marilyn Wind, a congregant and lay member of the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards (CJLS), discuss the committees recent debate and Teshuvot on the issues of gay rights. I also got the opportunity to read the (still unreleased) opinion by Rabbi Tucker, and it was (as expected), phenomenal. I had to give Ms. Wind the opinion back, but she promised to make and send me a copy--as soon as I receive it, I'll be able to go into more depth as to Rabbi Tucker's interpretative schema.

But as I was reading his opinion, I was struck with an interesting paradox in how we read the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. The relevant line is, as quoted above, thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. This passage is considered to be the largest barrier against religious reconceptualization of gay rights. We interpret it as an absolute bar against homosexual (or at least gay male) activity. "As with a women" supposedly refers to sexual activity. This is a heteronormative interpretation--only for heterosexual males (and homosexual females) are one's lyings with a women sexual. Cross-applying the rule to homosexuals means taking the heteronormative viewpoint and transplanting the rule (as opposed to the text) to homosexual persons.

But is that necessarily the proper interpretation? The prohibition is not phrased directly--it does not say "men should not have sex with men." The first thing we must observe is that the mandate of the text depends very heavily on who it is speaking to. Even if we accept that the prohibition is on having sex with men, it is facile to suggest that a female Jew is prohibited from having sex with men. In its normative frame, the verse makes no sense applied directly to women. This does not in itself prove anything--one could extrapolate an inverted rule prohibiting lesbian activity for women (though such extra-textualism strikes me as a dangerous maneuver for a traditionalist). It does establish, however, that the standpoint of the reader matters as to the meaning of the phrase. At its most conservative, 18:22 means two entirely opposite things for men and for women: men should not have sex with men, and women should not have sex with women.

A law can only have force against those it is meant to speak to. A prohibition that only refers to Kohenim should not be expanded all Jews. If we understand the prohibition of 18:22 to be against male-male sex, then it can only apply to men, it does not "speak to" female activity in any sense, either (obviously) prohibiting them from having sex with men, or prohibiting them from having sex with women.

It is possible to make the law apply to women, however. From a (heterosexual) female perspective, "not lying with a man as one lies with a women" does not mean "don't have sex with men," because heterosexual women do not have sex with women when they lie with them. For straight women, the analogy "as one lies with a women" does not and cannot refer to sexual activity. Indeed, it means the opposite--presumably, heterosexual women would lie with other women completely platonically. So the law as applied to heterosexual women is that they should not (artificially) be barred from having sex with men they wish to "lie with", for that would imply they must lie with men as they lie with women (non-sexually or platonically). Now, even though I think that for women it is better to interpret 18:22 in a "does not speak to" manner, hold that thought.

As noted above, the law can only have affect against those to whom it speaks. If 18:22 does not speak to homosexual men, then it has nothing to say to them, and its prohibition is inapplicable to them. And it is rather clear that the traditional reading of 18:22 is heteronormative--it is not just speaking to men, but heterosexual men. This is true for the same reason applying the law to females is troublesome--"as with a women" does not mean the same thing for a homosexual male as it does for a heterosexual male. How does a homosexual male lie with a women? Platonically, not sexually. If the law is speaking to homosexuals, not lying with a man as with a women is telling them they should not lie platonically with men. Phrased more sensibly, it says that gay men should not be forced to be in platonic relationships with other gay men, for that forces their relationships to be as they would be with women. (Of course, just as the metaphor "as with a woman" in the normative case does not mean that heterosexual men sleep with every women and cannot have a platonic relationship, neither does its use in this case imply that homosexual men must have sex with every man they encounter.).

The upshot of this is astounding: 18:22 is read as an affirmation that every person should refrain from attempting to engage in sexual relations--not with those of the same sex--but with those whom they are not attracted to. It is a prohibition against bearing false witness against oneself. Interpreting the passage in this manner allows for its universalizability and, more importantly, it is the only way the passage can be made intelligible to someone with a same-sex sexual orientation. It also seems to be more thematically consistent with the human dignity and companionship norms that undergird Jewish ethical thought: it reinforces the notion that forcing gay men and women to live a life alone is not just inadvisable, but wrong--just like it was not good for Adam to be alone, so it is not good for gay men to be trapped in the closet, forced to deny themselves and unable to reach complete fulfillment as human beings.

The orthodox reading of 18:22 falters because it takes a heteronormative viewpoint it expands it to all men, homo- or heterosexual. It presumes that for all men, sex is how one lies with a women, draws a rule from that inference, then applies the rule against those for whom the original supposition does not apply. This likely stems from the belief that homosexuality was a aberration from the heterosexual norm--that for all men (including the supposedly gay) the natural inclination was a sexual preference towards women, and gay men were voluntarily choosing to deviate from that norm. Now that we know that this is not true, and that for many men sexual attraction to women is not their default state, we can no longer read "as with a women" as necessarily referring to sex for all men. That is not a tenable interpretation in the modern era. And given what we now know about sexuality, a liberal, humane alternative emerges that celebrates sexual equality and rejects false heteronormative bindings that consign gay Jews to a life of oppression and degradation.

Again, the preceding analysis doesn't mean you have to read 18:22 expansively (as prohibiting gay men from having sex with women). Such a reading is only required if one believes the passage speaks to (can be read against) gay men. If one does not care about that, a narrow reading would just say that the passage does not speak to gay men at all, and the prohibition is only against heterosexual male-male sex, perhaps meant as a bar against certain cultic rituals (as Rabbi Brad Artson has forwarded). Either way 18:22 poses no bar to homosexual males being granted equal standing in the community and full recognition of their sexual orientation. The claim that 18:22 does not speak to homosexuals would mean that the Bible is agnostic toward homosexual activity among homosexuals. That's radical enough. What makes my alternative reading so incredible is that it would suggest that not only is homosexuality okay, but attempting to suppress it--making gay men lie with women as they would lie with men--is qualitatively wrong. 18:22 is thus rendered precisely opposite its orthodox stance: a ringing endorsement of gay equality and a condemnation of the closet.

***

If you enjoyed this analysis, please consider casting a vote for this blog in the 2006 Weblog Awards!

The 2006 Weblog Awards

10 comments:

  1. Interesting. Read the way you suggest it might be, does the passage then imply a certain prohibition against bisexuality?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It could be interpreted to mean that bisexuals should not sleep with men if they are attracted to women. But I am more inclined to think the passage is not speaking to bisexuals, as such an interpretation would be aberrational to the broader theme.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David, one of the errors many moderns make is assuming that the Hebrew Bible is particularly concerned with motivations for actions - in general, it's almost entirely concerned with the actions themselves.

    There is no concept of "homosexual person" in Traditional Judaism. There are homosexual acts, which by definition are sexual acts between either two men or two women, but the idea of defining someone by his or her sexual desire would have been anathema.

    To the point: the verse is never used to refer to women in a traditional context - lesbian sexual acts have a qualitatively different halakhic status than male homosexual acts in the Traditional view. (mind you, neither is exactly on the "approved" list, but the level of prohibition is different).

    The best reading of the text is that it means what it says. Besides, the prohibition is repeated in Leviticus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17, so trying to twist the intent is not dealing with the text honestly.

    Now, whether or not one chooses to follow this, or whether or not one feels that the text still has relevance in the modern world - those are up to the individual. But intellectual honesty requires dealing with the text we have.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure I doubt that the intent was different. But I don't see my role as an interpretor as assessing intent. Especially since the "intention" was based off a faulty perception about the status of being a homosexual. The fact that the Bible did not anticipate that its prohibition would be read differently by gays versus straight people doesn't change the fact that it does. In a progressive, etz chaim Torah, those facts matter in how we interpret the document today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David, there's no concept of a "status of being homosexual" - desires are not the same thing as identity.

    The reading you're proposing is deconstructionist, in the same way that a reading of the second amendment which went "because there is not today a well-regulated militia, there is no uninfringable right to keep and bear arms."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, it's a good thing I'm a deconstructionist then :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5:43 AM

    You could spin this to be a divine injunction against bisexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:17 PM

    Boy, you sure twist Scriptures. The Bible says simply what it means! You forget where it says...

    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

    Why would God give someone a death penalty for just "laying platonically" with someone? How would you know if you find two people laying naked together if they really liked each other or not?

    People were also given a death penalty for "laying with a beast" how do you know if someone laying with a beast is doing only "platonically" or can you tell if someone truly loves the beast with whom they have sexual relations?!

    Consider also this passage...

    Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    ...
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    God made male and female for a reason, to make babies. Not every heterosexual couple will make babies, but that is their natural use! In Genesis it says a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE not a husband!

    You are very good at taking one Scripture and twisting it beyond recognition!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I couldn't care less about what Roman says (being Jewish), and the idea that God would recommend the death penalty for homosexual sex is just as absurd to me as that He would recommend it for lying platonically with a woman. Either reading violates the aforementioned Rabbi Gordon Tucker's maxim "thou shalt not interpret the Bible in such a manner as to make it immoral."

    I agree the Bible means what it says. But what it says differs on standpoint. Or are women not allowed to "lie with men" either?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:36 PM

    other anti-heteronormative readings of often cited biblical passages can be found at: http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html

    ReplyDelete