“A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have both done an abomination [toeva, תועב]....”(Leviticus 20:13)
The above quote might qualify as the most emotionally, socially, and politically influential verse in the entire Bible. If this verse is not, then it is clearly one of the contenders. On account of this verse, entire branches of psychology have been influenced. On account of this verse, many if not most gay men raised in Jewish, Christian, or other Bible-based cultures choose a secular life rather than a religious one. On account of this verse, laws are crafted against gay men, for gay men, about gay men. But what is the verse truly attempting to communicate?
The words “a man who lies with a man” may be interpreted as a reference to anal intercourse between two men. But what of the phrase “as one lies with a woman”? Although, traditionally, this latter phrase has been interpreted to mean vaginal intercourse, a literalistic reading of the text provides no clues here that are suggestive of vaginal penetration. Indeed, the Book of Leviticus provides no indication – apparently – that a likening of male-male anal intercourse to male-female vaginal intercourse is the Levitical intent. It might seem more sound of reason to compare male-male anal intercourse with its direct male-female counterpart, male-female anal intercourse. Since an anus is not a vagina – or a mouth, for that matter – it makes sense to compare apples with apples, anal penetration with anal penetration.
It may be stated with confidence that women, by in large, prefer vaginal intercourse to anal intercourse. A woman possesses a natural orifice specifically adapted for sexual relations, and her desire for intercourse is oriented toward that orifice. As a consequence, women normally do not desire anal intercourse. While a woman may sometimes opt for anal intercourse for other reasons – pressure from a husband or boyfriend, a concern for pregnancy, or otherwise – such secondary reasons do not relate to a primal desire for the sexual act.
This, then, would seem to be the context for “as one lies with a woman”. If a woman does not want anal sex for the sex itself, then the phrase “A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman” would seem to imply anal intercourse with a man whose sentiments resemble those of a woman. In other words, the verse would seem to refer to a man who does not want anal intercourse. He feels coerced into the act.
What type of man might this be? The man might not be gay. The man might be gay but might not wish to couple with the penetrating man. The man might be a child whose sexual feelings are confused or absent. The man might feel pressured and overwhelmed, despite himself, by a powerful gay man. The situation might be one of rape. Any of the above situations would qualify as “A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman.” Note, however, what does not appear on the above list: a consenting relationship between two adult gay men. So, too, when interpreted in this manner, gay marriage is off the list.
One might argue that the above interpretation is not the traditional one. Admittedly, that critique would seem to be true – although, so, too, it must be admitted that the tradition we have might not be the one intended millennia ago. More to the point, however, is that gay marriage has demonstrated itself to be a success in more than one aspect. As such, this civil institution would seem to require a fresh look and a reality check.
Gay marriage is a fact of life in many places, and where it exists, it has become a mostly accepted part of the social milieu. Gay men maintain monogamous, stable relationships for a lifetime. Gay men work and thereby contribute to the economy and society. Gay men build stable homes and frequently raise children in those homes. Gay men find fulfillment in life together. Gay men accompany one another, through old age, until the last dying moments. In short, in some of the most important respects – gay marriage has demonstrated itself to be a holy institution. And just as man-woman vaginal intercourse can serve to cement a heterosexual marriage, so, too, consensual man-man anal intercourse can serve to cement a civil homosexual one.
It may be that anal intercourse is inseparable from gay marriage as an institution. In our day, with so many marriages failing and families crumbling, it would seem that people are starving by virtue of the homelessness in their own heads. This issue cannot be overstated. Society must permit its members the possibility of home and lifetime companion.
What of childbirth? In this, too, a fresh look would seem to be required. The institution of marriage has always been about commitment, but it has not always been about companionship. In cultures featuring a large dichotomy between men’s and women’s status, the participants, by in large, do not marry with an expectation that they will find friendship and/or mutual respect. In such societies, the considerations of status, property, and feminine beauty loom larger as motivating factors for marriage, whereas issues of interactive compatibility assume lesser importance. In cultures such as these, it might make sense to focus on children as the main goal for a marriage. After all, the building of a future through children would seem to be more elevated and selfless than the accumulation of money or status for its own sake.
In contrast, in many modern societies, marriage is about love, companionship, mutual respect, and a deep striving for equality and harmony. Such marriages do exist, and where they do, they demonstrate elevated worth and merit – with or without children.
Male homosexuality in Mishnaic and Talmudic sources
The Babylonian Talmud compares and contrasts three forms of prohibited couplings: prohibited heterosexual couplings, male-male homosexual couplings, and bestiality. From the following Talmudic discussions, three important concepts may be extracted:
-
A coupling event may be either ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’: vaginal or anal.
-
Either one or both participants might feel ‘ha’era’ [הארעה] an ‘awakening of desire.’
-
A coupling might or might not be described as ‘cleaving’ – the implication of ‘cleaving’ being that there exists potential for human conception and for new life.
“One who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, is liable. Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda taught: ‘With regard to a woman there are two [manners of] lying [anal or vaginal]. But with regard to an animal there is only one [manner of] lying.’ Rav Pappa objects to this. ‘On the contrary, a woman, whose typical manner is [vaginal intercourse], is rendered liable for lying [with an animal only in that manner]. She is not rendered liable for something else.’ [But for a man] that sleeps with an animal, since it is not typical, he should be rendered liable for it through each and every orifice.”(Sanhedrin 55a)
Although the above passage discusses bestiality, not homosexuality, it has been included so as to demonstrate a method of categorizing sexual relations. Intercourse might be ‘typical’ — as in vaginal intercourse with a woman; or else it might be ‘atypical’ — as in anal intercourse with either man or woman.
Rav Pappa holds that, for a woman, vaginal intercourse is ‘typical’ whereas anal intercourse is ‘atypical’. This interpretation, although not identical to the previous section, would seem to support the previous assertion – namely, that vaginal intercourse should not be conflated with anal intercourse.
According to Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda, this question of ‘typical’ vs. ‘atypical’ is not relevant for the purposes of assigning liability. In all cases, the participants are liable.
“It is taught in a baraita [an uncodified passage of Mishna]: It is taught in accordance with neither of their [opinions: One who engages in homosexual intercourse with] a male aged nine years and one day, or one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or an atypical manner, are liable.”(Sanhedrin 55a)
The above Mishnaic passage condemns both homosexuality and bestiality, while at the same time dismissing the issue of ‘typical’ vs. ‘atypical’ intercourse. This passage also introduces the possibility that a child might be involved in homosexual intercourse — a historic concern. The passage goes on to conflate such exploitative coupling with bestiality.
Although not expressed explicitly, in combination with the passage that follows, one suspects that the homosexual coupling referred to above – including with a child – has been conflated with bestiality so as to illustrate a point: namely, that the homosexual coupling at issue here is coerced homosexual coupling. A beast prefers a beast of its kind; a child has no desire for sex; and so, too, a coerced man prefers no sex to the anal penetration that is at issue here. If so — then it is likely that it is the coerced aspect of homosexual coupling that carries the liability.
Ravina said to Rava: One who performs the initial stage of intercourse with a male: what is [the halacha? Is he liable?] [The Gemara comments:] One who performs the initial stage of intercourse with a male ‘as with a woman’(Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to him. [Rava] said to him, [In the verse, ‘The nakedness of your mother’s sister or your father’s sister shall you not uncover, for his remainder is awakened [ha’era, העראה. Here the reference is to awakening of desire]….’ (Leviticus 20:19)] If ‘ha’era’ [העראה] is not the matter of the initial stage of intercourse where it is written — for intercourse with one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister; as it is not necessary there since the initial stage of intercourse with regard to all forbidden sexual relations is compared by the Torah to the halacha of the initial stage of intercourse with regard to a menstruating woman — [then] apply it instead to the matter of the initial stage of intercourse with an animal.(Sanhedrin 55a)
The above passage describes two categories of prohibited couplings: bidirectional desire (‘ha’era’ [awakening of desire]); and unidirectional desire (‘ha’era’ [awakening of desire]). The category of bidirectional desire includes nephew-aunt couplings; man-menstruant woman couplings; and by inference, consensual male homosexual couplings. The category of unidirectional desire includes bestiality; and by inference, coerced homosexual coupling. The latter — coerced homosexual coupling — includes homosexual coupling with a child. The sin of such couplings is grave.
As is taught [in a Baraita]: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, [and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh].’ (Genesis 2:24)....‘And shall cleave, ודבק, [to his wife]’ but not to a male; to his wife’…. ‘And they shall be one flesh’— one of those with whom he can become one flesh. This excludes domesticated and undomesticated animals, as they do not become one flesh.(Sanhedrin 58a)
The above passage introduces a third consideration: pregnancy and childbirth. A man can ‘cleave’ to a woman and thereby bring forth conception of a child. In contrast, a man cannot ‘cleave’ to another man or to an animal: there is no possibility of bringing forth a child.
Overall, it seems clear that the Oral Torah condemns rather than condones: but liability for the act of intercourse is less clear. The following conclusions can be made about the Oral Torah’s treatment of the subject:
-
Anal intercourse is ‘atypical,’ whereas vaginal intercourse is ‘typical.’ Nevertheless, this issue might not be considered for purposes of legal liability.(Gemara, Sanhedrin 55a)
-
Consensual male-male homosexual coupling, by definition, involves bidirectional desire. In contrast, coerced male-male homosexual coupling displays unidirectional desire and is punishable by Levitical law. It is suspected that coerced homosexual coupling – and not the consensual variety – is the type that carries the liability. Nevertheless, it is possible that all homosexual coupling carries liability. (Baraita and Gemara, Sanhedrin 55a)
-
Male-male homosexual coupling does not produce offspring. This is irrefutable. However, the Mishnaic passage discusses no specific liability associated with this lack.(Baraita, Sanhedrin 58a)
Summarizing on the above, we would seem to be left with the following pressing questions:
-
Is all male homosexual coupling condemned, or might condemnation be reserved for the coerced variety alone?
-
Condemnation aside, is all male homosexual coupling subject to liability, or – as has been surmised – is only the coerced variety subject to liability?
Abomination?
In our discussion of male homosexuality, one further issue remains to be discussed.
If, as has been surmised, the intent of the Levitical passage in chapter 20 is to enjoin followers to avoid all forms of coerced homosexual couplings, then one must ask the following question:
Why might the Levitical passage have labeled coerced homosexual relations — but not coerced heterosexual relations — an ‘abomination’[toeva, תואבה]? Surely, any type of forced sex would seem to constitute an abomination. Such events are insults to morality as well as to purity.
The answer to this question might lie in the outward consequences of the act. Forced vaginal intercourse often leads to outward consequences such as pregnancy, miscarriage, and hymenal rupture — tragic events that most decent societies take pains to suppress or eliminate. Even forced anal intercourse with a woman can carry a risk for pregnancy. If semen in or around the anus were to come in contact with the vaginal tract, a woman could be impregnated thereby.
A society that wishes to avoid the outward consequences of coerced heterosexual sex — rape-born pregnancy, for instance — should also be concerned about the potential for lies and confusion. Even if a person claims that a particular event was anal, it is possible that the event might have been vaginal, or perhaps the event was both anal and vaginal. Once again, society faces a challenge.
In contrast to the situation of coerced sex between man and woman, in a situation of coerced sex between man and man, there are no similar outward consequences. There is no hymen to rupture; no womb to impregnate. An otherwise reasonable society could thereby rationalize that coerced homosexual anal penetration is less of a concern than coerced heterosexual intercourse of any kind.
The Book of Leviticus tells us otherwise. Forced sex of any type is a violation and an abomination — but in the case of coerced heterosexual sex, the abomination is obvious and the outrage is clear. In the case of coerced homosexual relations, the situation might be less obvious. Therefore, the Levitical Author spells it out such that there can be no confusion. Coerced homosexual sex is an abomination, a ‘to’eva’, an assault on morality and on purity. Sex belongs where it belongs; and it does not belong here.