The command to not commit adultery in Exodus 20:14 and its restatement in Deuteronomy 5:18 is not directly addressed to just men or just women. Like the prohibition of murder one verse prior in each case and the prescription of honoring one's mother and father two verses prior (again, in both cases), this is simply put forth as something that is to be avoided by all people. Does this mean that adultery is still a married woman and a man other than her husband having sex, and this specific sexual encounter is sinful for both participants, whereas a married man can have sex with other unmarried women as some think the wording of Deuteronomy 22:22 teaches? Anyone who believes in a sexist intention for these verses, in one direction or another, is either assuming the Bible teaches something they ultimately read of in outside documents (which, even if accurately describing the way ancient Israelites lived, still does not clarify what is prescribed/condemned here) or is the kind of fool who would think that the language of Leviticus 18's and 20's sexual prohibitions would literally only apply to men having specific kinds of sex with mothers, sisters, and so on.
As if Leviticus 18:6 does not already say that no one is to have sex with their close family members and the following cases are not just examples of this addressed to men--meaning the same/inverse would be sinful for women--the wording of the verses (in addition to logical equivalence) makes it clear that sexual matters are not permissible or evil based upon gender, with adultery being among the miscellaneous examples listed (18:20, 20:10). A woman could not have sex with a man during her period (18:19) any more than a man could not have sex with any woman during her period. There is nothing about the language of it being immoral for men to marry their sisters, for instance, that means it is specifically the brother marrying the sister (20:17) that makes this alone is evil. After all, even if it was "only" prohibited in this direction, women who marry their brothers and have sex with them would still be making their brothers sin, so it would still by necessity be immoral for them to initiate as opposed to a brother. One of these things being immoral entails the other and anything else is a contradiction! Leviticus 18:6 addressing all people and then following instances being written about a man not performing a specific sexual act already means that there is Biblical clarity in the text itself, as opposed to solely necessitated by logical equivalence, that wording a sexual command to make it seem addressed to men does not actually mean that the same act is not prohibited/permitted for women.
With a far more important issue of sexual ethics than adultery or incest, it is not just this logical equivalence and the text not actually excluding gender equality here that clarifies this. What of the case law in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 dealing with rape? As if the fact that rape is likened to murder, which is always immoral and always deserves death (Exodus 20:13, 21:12), would not already apply to male and female victims or perpetrators, Genesis 1:26-27 also, of course, applies here. Can women rape? Can men be raped? Can women who are not married or engaged be raped? The same reason why the deed is evil when done to an engaged woman in the case law would then have to be the case in all other instances of rape. It is possible for men to cheat on their wives sexually and women to rape men. The obligations to avoid such behaviors, thus, would have to be the same (irregardless of whether the Bible is true if such obligations exist at all) for men and women, and the Bible does not deny any of this. "Do not commit adultery" from the Ten Commandments, twice repeated, and the far broader applicability of the case law in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 than the exact example provided--especially in light of Genesis 1:26-27 and how Leviticus 18 and 20 cannot just be about only men being unable to have sex with the precise women prohibited there--apply to both men and women.
Beyond just the wording of a man not having sex with another man's wife in verses like Deuteronomy 22:22, Matthew 5:28 mentions men lusting after women and thus committing adultery of the mind, but does not use the inverse language, not that women cannot lust or that this would not be sinful for them. This is a reworded, more contextually narrow version of the command to not covet (Exodus 20:17), since the words for covet in Hebrew and Greek are identical, so it cannot be talking about unmarried people; an unmarried or unengaged person cannot be lusted after, and sexual attraction and acting on it, such as through masturbation, is permitted, obviously, for both genders (Deuteronomy 4:2). Mentioning a man having sex with another man's wife or lusting after a separately married woman, though, in no way requires that the statement is only addressing this exact gender arrangement instead of extramarital infidelity or lust themselves, irrespective of gender.
If the language used in reference to adultery did entail a sexist stance on adultery, as some positively or negatively believe, then the same would have to be true of lust. Lust would be condemned for men but not for women since that is the exact wording. However, if married men are Biblically permitted to have sex with women they are not married to as long as they are not someone else's wife (or their sister or so on) and men, allegedly unlike women, are allowed to have multiple spouses at once, then lust would in fact be worse for women on this type of sexist, complementarian moral framework. It would not follow if this idiocy was what the Bible taught that it is only men lusting after only women that would be immoral and not the other way around, as would be the case if the example of a male lusting after a women meant what such people would have to believe in order to be consistent. It would actually be worse for women to lust because they have no legitimate way to act on any sexual attraction to multiple men at once through polyamory or besides something such as masturbation (Deuteronomy 4:2 would still make this permissible either way)! For both men and women, lust would be necessarily immoral, but this position entails that men would be able to take multiple wives, but not the other way around. However, people who think the exact language of Deuteronomy 22:22 or Matthew 5:28 prescribes gender-specific obligations would be hypocrites if they either denied or acknowledged this ramification of their own notions!
The obligation would still be the same, ironically, just like the obligation to not have casual sex would be the same for men and women even if it was "only" immoral for women--the men would be helping the women participate in a sinful thing, which would still make them guilty! This is not very difficult to realize. Still, this kind of person is also at least likely sympathetic to other hypocritical, irrationalistic ideas, such as that of the Bible only condemning male homosexual behaviors since they are mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. For all the aforementioned reasons, the immorality of homosexual actions would absolutely be the case for both men and women, but Romans 1:26-27 specifically touches upon lesbianism, though one does not need this passage to discover the previously mentioned points. If a woman can commit homosexual acts, and such acts are morally wrong for a man, then the same would have to be true of a woman's because homosexual activities are the issue. God does not change between the testaments (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).
Thus, as if Romans 1 is needed to realize any of these other points about the Biblical morality of female homosexual behaviors, lesbian actions would have been immoral for the entirety of Biblical history, not just the New Testament period, since Mosaic Law on its own and with the Genesis account of creation is not strictly about the exact scenarios listed, some of which happen to feature men or women in particular ways. Again, references to males does not necessitate that women are free to do what men are not and vice versa! If this was the case, the gender neutrality of other translations aside, then the laws in Exodus 21:12-14 would also mean, according to this non sequitur stance on such verses, that men sin by murdering men, but men can murder women and women can murder either men or women without sin (though Exodus 20:13 refutes this independently, it would still not be the Biblical doctrine on murder otherwise!). After all, after Exodus 21:12, which speaks of a man being murdered, the following verses refer to a male perpetrator. The same would be true of Exodus 21:18-19 with its addressing of non-lethal, nonsexual assault with no permanent injuries, as well as once again with various references to adultery in Mosaic Law. What stupidity this is! All of this is incompatible with both men and women bearing God's image and how the text never actually says that these obligations are gender-specific, even while providing numerous, miscellaneous examples of ways they are not.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment