Same Sex Relationships: Revisiting the Creation Narrative

Below is a short essay I wrote on another blog.
========================

I want to revisit the creation narrative in Genesis 2:1-25, which many Christians claim shows God's true intention for romantic relationships. I'm not discussing other texts cited against SS relationships. Whether or not the Bible condemns SS relationships per se in other passages is not the topic of this entry, so please don't leave comments to the effect of: "Yes, but the Bible forbids homosexual acts in many passages". I'm simply suggesting that the creation narrative should not be used against SS relationships.

There are two arguments from silence that are often made against SS relationships, one of which is broad and the other is more specific.

The broad argument is "if SS relationships are acceptable, then why aren't they ever affirmed in the Bible?"

The more specific argument is "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" – i.e. the creation narrative lists the first couple, and they are opposite sexed, which therefore indicates that OS relationships are what God intended. It won't do any good to argue that the account is myth because non-literalist Christians can still argue something like the following: "The beautiful and divinely inspired myth contains an archetype of what romantic relationships are supposed to be like: one man and one woman."

I will discuss both arguments from silence below.

The first argument from silence

In the case of same-sex relationships per se from a scriptural point of view, does the absence of (explicit) affirmation equal the presence of condemnation?

Let's apply the same question to other activities that are never affirmed. The Bible never affirms or explicitly condones ingesting caffeine or junk food, yoga, full contact sports, or masturbation. Are these activities also immoral on the basis of scripture never mentioning them? In these latter cases, does the absence of affirmation equal the presence of condemnation? If not, then why not?

If anything, there is a much stronger case against full-contact sports and "fake" pro-wrestling (whose "competition" is fake but whose violence is real in varying degrees) than against same-sex relationships. Full contact sports (such as boxing or hockey) and pro-wrestling are very violent and always require damaging the human body, which is supposed to be a temple for the Lord.

And what about eating junk food and ingesting caffeine? "Junk food" is given that label because it provides little to no sustenance/nutritional support. It wastes the function of the intestines, which is to obtain nutrients from foods and deliver them to the bloodstream. Caffeine actually removes water from the body because it is a diuretic. Aside from that, it also interferes with sleep and is a highly addictive substance that leads to severe withdrawal symptoms. The more you drink the more you need, and the more you need the more severe the withdrawal. In other words, instead of consumers mastering caffeine, caffeine becomes the master and takes control. As with all addictions, the addict cannot function normally (in some cases for over a week) without another "hit". Why is caffeine consumption morally acceptable and yet same-sex relationships are not?

Again, I'm here dealing with the argument from silence. It's usually claimed that the Bible does indeed explicitly and repeatedly condemn all SS relationships for all time. But right now I'm dealing with the argument from silence ("the Bible never approves of SS relationships"). My contention is that the argument is very weak because the Bible never approves of many things that we take for granted.

The Second Argument from Silence – "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve"

Conventional authors on this subject argue that if God affirms SS relationships, then he would have included a SS couple in the creation story. As the first argument from silence, I think this one is weak. Actually, I think that it's even weaker and also bizarre.

For starters, the creation narrative is silent on a lot of things that we would never condemn, such as celibacy, meat eating, platonic friendships, and so on. I want to briefly discuss each of those below.

Celibacy – Robert Gagnon argues that the affirmation of SS relationships would require an entirely different creation story, but he fails to note that the claim could be said of celibacy. In fact, the story commands the opposite ("be fruitful and multiply" and "for this reason a man will dabaq to woman"). The creation narrative simply does not mention or affirm either celibacy or singleness, but we would never condemn those... right? (By "celibacy", I mean total abstinence from sexual activity, something required of Catholic Priests)

Meat eating – the only diet mentioned is vegetarianism, and meat eating is not mentioned until much later in Genesis.

Platonic friendships – These are simply not mentioned; the only human relationship mentioned is an erotic/romantic relationship, and there is no hint in the story that humans were meant to have platonic friendships with each other. Conventional authors could counter by saying that "the story also never condemns such friendships", but that is precisely my point. The story never condemns SS relationships, but instead simply fails to mention them, which is not the same as indicating that OS relationships are somehow "ideal" or superior to SS relationships. Concluding otherwise would be hasty and inconsistent. Why not also conclude that "erotic relationships are ideal and superior to platonic relationships". And even if we do conclude that erotic relationships are better than platonic relationships, we would still not condemn platonic relationships... right?

Secondly, the model of one woman and one man is challenged by the Bible itself, indeed by Genesis itself. Genesis itself goes on to show the affirmation for polygamy (1 man with multiple women). Genesis also affirms concubines. And the vegetarian diet in the creation narrative is replaced with meat eating after Noah's flood. All of these are not only absent in the creation story, but they also go against the model in the creation story.

Third, prior to the creation of Eve, the creation story explicitly says that the animals were not suitable as a mate for Adam. But if SS relationships are wrong, then why didn't the story also explicitly say that Steve is not a suitable mate for Adam?? I first heard this particular argument from a biological anthropologist named Patrick Chapman, who recently published an excellent book that I highly recommend.

Aside from that, I think a lot of people will be interested in Brian Rainey's essay on the creation story (which I posted in my xanga, with all credit given to him, here)

So what am I saying? Again, I'm simply saying that the argument from silence is very weak, regardless of whether it takes place in the form of Adam and Eve or more broadly. But somebody could still argue that the Bible explicitly condemns SS relationships elsewhere. That isn't my present concern and is not the topic of this entry. One issue at a time.