The Really Good Parts of Heaven Are Reserved for Male Virgins

We don't buy into this do we?

If you see a lady you like among your enemy, bring her home, rape her, and she's yours. If you later decide you don't like her after all, you can get rid of her, but you can't sell her because you made her dirty. (Deut. 21:10-14)

If a man rapes an unengaged young woman, he must compensate her father and then marry her. (Deut. 22:28)

If a young engaged women is raped in town and she doesn't cry out loudly enough to get help, she should be killed. (Deut. 22:23-24)

Men should not "go to worship" with damaged genitalia. (Deut. 23:1)

As you're speaking with your child, telling her about the ins and outs of physical intimacy, teaching her about what love means to us, what she should do, what she ought not do, what she might expect, how to treat others, you teach her this don't you? Of course if you do, you're already violating the sense of the law since it was written for men. See you in hell, dummy (from heaven).

But your son, you tell your son to keep his penis intact so that he can go to church, right? You tell him to make sure he only rapes a woman he can afford, don't you? Of course you... oh you don't? Oh well, see you in hell, too.

***
I should offer a tip of the hat to students with whom I first shared these verses, who remind us these "translations" have me read "seizing a woman" as rape rather than something a man gets to do to a woman by virtue of his being a man. That is, my use of "rape" may not be appropriate since it carries with it a meaning for us that may not be present for the audience who could not imagine certain types of forced sexual intercourse as something wrong. But that remains a part of my point, which is, we generally* don't say this has a direct "do and do not do" bearing on our lives even though we say the Bible has a direct "do and do not do" bearing on our lives.

We can say that because there is something that comes before the do and do not do (and it's not the "New Covenant"), though it's not likely that we see it. It's hard, if not disorienting, to see the things through which we see. Imagine if you were aware that you see your eyeball lens as you see through it.

Cosmic, man.

No wonder we don't question the Late Capitalist Agenda, or even know to look for its influence on how we imagine and approach everything. (Sure, but we can imagine something like the Gay Agenda can exist- as if people excluded from the "mainstream" have the type of position in the world to create an agenda). No wonder it seems silly for me to identify something called Late Capitalism and suggest it has an influence on us. Did I say influence? That's not nearly strong enough. What would you call the activity of a power that completely dominates your being, binds you to itself so the whole of your life is determined to serve it? Maybe in-fluence is the perfect word.

I only mention this because we reject the Gospel for our lives, so we are determined to imagine something we call homosexuality is treated by the Bible. Yeah that's what I'm saying: if you think the Bible addresses what we call homosexuality and from that you say something like "It's wrong for a man to be physically attracted to a man, blah blah blah", you need Jesus to save you from that. But don't feel bad, we all need Jesus. So, you know, whatever.

*I say generally because I am sure there are those who would love for this to be the basis of social order. I'm looking at you, "Yes On 8" financial backers.

When I Hear Gay Agenda, I Think of This
Waiting for The Bus- Violent Femmes
It's Oh So Quiet- Björk
Novacane- Beck
Jumpin' at the Woodside- Duke Ellington
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Tangled Up In Blue- Bob Dylan
When The Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin
Livin' Thing- ELO