NO-HARM AND LOVE
    MORE DETAILS

Summary of this page


OVERVIEW OF THIS PAGE

Male-male penetration (anal sex) is okay if no
direct or indirect harm is caused.


SEX AND SLAVERY

The Biblical arguments now used to condemn
male-male penetration are the same types of
arguments as those used in the past to justify
slavery.  In fact the authors (Moses and Paul) of
the Biblical books which condemn or criticize
male-male penetration* also say that owning
slaves is okay**.  Therefore people who argue
that male-male penetration is bad because the
Bible says so and what the Bible says is true,
those people must recognize that the Bible also
says that owning slaves is okay.  If they don’t
agree with slavery, they can’t condemn male-
male penetration just on the basis of the Biblical
condemnation or criticism of such sex.

*Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26-7, 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim I:10
**Lev 25:44–46 and 1 Cor 7:21, Eph 6:5, I Tim 6:1





































Main pro- and anti-slavery arguments



BIBLICAL NO-HARM TEST

The Bible provides a test to decide whether sex
between men (including male-male penetration)
and sex between women is good or bad.  It is the
no-harm test.

You ask
Does the activity cause harm or not?  
This test is based on Romans 13:9-10,
summarized as
If you love (act for the welfare of)
your neighbor, including not harming your
neighbor, you then fulfill (meet all the
requirements of) the Old Testament
commandments*.

* See also Galatians 5:14 For the entire [Old Testament] law is
fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as
yourself.”
 NIV

A more positive expression of
no-harm is to say
that people should act with caring love.  However
the concept of
caring love is a rather fuzzy one
because
love can have a number of meanings,
ranging from friendship to erotic love.  It therefore
seems clearer to say and require
do not cause
any harm
.

Your
neighbor is any person you come into
contact with.  In a sexual relations context,
your
neighbor
means the person you are having sex
with and any third party, e.g. the partner of that
person.  Of course, as well as not harming your
neighbor, you should not harm yourself.

The
no-harm test is supported by the Golden
Rule, i.e.
Treat people the same way you want
them to treat you
(Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31).  
If you do this, you will not harm others.

The
no-harm test is also supported by Paul’s
teaching that we can do anything provided that
what we do is beneficial or helpful (to ourselves
and others) and that we are not enslaved by
what we do (I Corinthians 6:12).

It is considered that sex between men
(including male-male penetration) and sex
between women pass the
no-harm test in
circumstances where no one is harmed by
the activity.

It is acknowledged that a man’s penetrating
actions contravene the non-penetration
command (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) and its
cultural bases (the main purpose of sex is to
have children, and men should not act like
women when having sex).  Nevertheless, the
penetrating actions still meet the underlying and
continuing requirements of the non-penetration  
command, ie. no harm to the participants or to
the community (except for its cultural basis).  
So,
if a man does not harm himself, the other
man or any third party (e.g., a partner), then
male-male penetration is okay
.

If there is no harm (physical, emotional,
mental or relational), the
no male-male
penetration
texts can be set aside as no
longer applying; just as the
pro-slavery texts
have been set aside as no longer applying

because slavery harms people.

As the New Testament criticisms of male-male
penetration (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and
1 Timothy 1:10) are based on the Old Testament
non-penetration command,
the New Testament
criticisms can also be set aside as no longer
applying
.

Some people might argue that this test is invalid
because it allows clear biblical requirements to
be ignored.  However the test is consistent with
Jesus deliberately working on the Sabbath,
contrary to one of the 10 Commandments.  This
commandment says that people shall not do any
work on every 7th day (the Sabbath)
1.  However
Jesus healed sick people and picked grain
(which counted as work) on the Sabbath.  He
agreed with people working on the Sabbath by
lifting a sheep out of a pit.  So Jesus set aside
and ignored the Sabbath commandment when no
harm (only good) was done
2.  Similarly he
declared all foods clean (contrary to the Old
Testament law) because no harm was done by
them
3. These actions of Jesus validate the use
of the test.  (Note that in each case the command
still exists – Jesus said that he did not come to
change the Old Testament law
4 – it’s just that
we don’t always need to follow it if no harm is
done.  This applies to other commands also, e.g.
those covering not planting mixed crops
5 and
not charging interest on loans
6.)

1 Exodus 20:8-11      2 Matthew 12:1-14  Luke 13:10-16
3 Mark 7:18-19           4 Matthew 5:17-20
5 Leviticus 19:19        6 Exodus 22:25  Leviticus 25:36,37


The
no-harm test applies also to male-female
penetration (straight sex) and non-sexual
activities too.  For example, the system of slavery
fails the
no-harm test.

Some people might argue that incest would be
allowed by using this test.  But this wouldn’t be
so because incest causes harm.  In Old
Testament times, a woman (mother, daughter,
etc) was considered to be the property of a man
(father, uncle, etc).  Therefore a man having
incestuous sex with her would be defiling
someone else’s property.  While these
property
views are not held today, harm would still be
caused if there was emotional or physical abuse
(from one person having power over the other) or
if inbreeding led to birth defects.  Even
consensual adult incest with protection against
insemination causes emotional harm because the
relationships of the family members have been
sexualized.  A brother and sister, or a father and
daughter, can never see each other again in the
usual non-sexual way.

One could argue that the
no-harm test is flawed
because it requires an individual to decide
whether some action is harmful or not (as
opposed to a sacred document telling us what is
harmful).  A counter argument is that this is
beneficial because it overcomes the problem that
what is harmful in certain circumstances may not
be harmful in other circumstances*.  So it is
better for individuals to work it out for themselves.

* For example, it could be argued that male-male penetration
would have failed the
no-harm test in Old Testament and New
Testament times because people of those times would have
thought that the men or the community was harmed by such
penetration.


In practice, many or most harmful actions are
obviously so.  Where some action is not
obviously harmful, persons could ask whether
the way they are, or will be, treating another
person is how they would like that person to treat
them, including with respect and dignity.  If the
answer is no, then it is harmful.

We don’t know why the biblical
no-harm test was
not applied in Paul’s time to the
no male-male
penetration
texts and the pro-slavery texts other
than to say that it would not have been
practicable to allow male-male penetration or to
stop slavery in the culture of the day or for some
time after.  It was finally possible to stop most
open forms of slavery in the 19th Century and
the attitude to male-male penetration is currently
slowly changing.

Therefore despite the Biblical prohibition and
criticisms, if a man wishes to indulge in
penetration (anal intercourse) with another man,
he can do so with a clear conscience
provided that he does not harm
himself, the
other man or any third party (e.g. a partner),
physically, emotionally*, mentally or relationally,
directly or indirectly.

Further,
this test applies to men having any
form of sex with men and also applies to sex
between women
.  The participants pass the
test if they act with caring love and do not cause
any harm.

An important benefit of not causing any harm is
that it is one of the keys to having
eternal life.  
Jesus said that if you love God and love your
neighbor [not harming your neighbor], you will
have eternal life (Luke 10:25-28).

* Emotional harm would include, among other things, harm to
a
person’s honor or rights.


The Love Commandments

There are 2 Love Commandments.
1.
Love God totally.
2.
Love other people as you love yourself.

These commandments were first stated in the
Old Testament:
1.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your being and with all your
strength
.  (Deuteronomy 6:5)
2.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  
(Leviticus 19:18)

These commandments were repeated by Jesus:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your being and with all your mind and
with all your strength [and] love your neighbor as
yourself.
 (Matthew 22:37-9, Mark 12:30-1, Luke
10:27)

Here
love means self-giving or selfless love,
which seeks the other person’s welfare.

How do you love God?  Jesus (who was God
in human form) gave the answer as
If you love
me, you will keep my commandments
(John 14:
15; compare 14:21 & 15:10).

Jesus said that on the commandments to love
God and your neighbor depend (or hang) the
whole Old Testament Law and the Prophets
(Matthew 22:40).  Paul later adds that the person
who loves his or her neighbor has fulfilled (or
carried out) the Old Testament law (Romans 13:
8 & Galatians 5:14).  Therefore loving your
neighbor as yourself can result in you keeping
the entire Old Testament law.

And how do you love (act for the welfare of)
your neighbor as yourself?
 By not harming
your neighbor
(Romans 13:10).  In practice you
would only do to other people what you would
want them to do to you.  This would include both
you and the other person fully consenting to what
is done or proposed, and treating each other
fairly.  It would also avoid deception, force and
injury.

As Joe Orton (a gay British author) said,
You
must do whatever you like, as long as you enjoy
it and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s all that
matters.

In legal terms, you must take reasonable care to
avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your
neighbor. (Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson).

And
who is your neighbor?  Any person you
come into contact with (See
the story of the
Good Samaritan
in Luke 10:29-37).  In a sexual
relations context, your
neighbor means the
person you are having sex with and any third
party, e.g. the partner of that person.


The Golden Rule

You follow the Golden Rule for living by doing to
others what you would want them to do to you.  
Jesus expressed this as
Treat people the same
way you want them to treat you
(Matthew 7:12
and Luke 6:31).  This would include treating
other people with kindness and honor and not
harming them.  Similar expressions were stated
by Confucius, Aristotle, Socrates, the Jewish
Talmud (Shabbat 31a) and J S Mill.  The Golden
Rule sums up, and is the basis of, the Old
Testament Law and Prophets (Matthew 7:12).  

Following this Rule helps to ensure that no harm
is done to other people.



No sex outside marriage

Some people claim that the Bible allows sexual
intercourse only within a male-female marriage.

Reasons why the view of “no sex outside male-
female marriage” can be ignored

  • The Bible presents male-female marriage as
    the usual pattern and implies that this is the
    best place for sex.  But the Bible nowhere
    says that all sex outside male-female
    marriage is wrong.  It simply says that
    certain kinds of sexual intercourse (incest,
    adultery, bestiality, prostitution and male-
    male sex) are wrong *.

  • The Creation story explains why men and
    women get married and have sex (Genesis
    1:28 and 2:24).  The story does not state or
    imply that marriage is compulsory, or that all
    sex must be between males and females, or
    that all sex outside male-female marriage is
    wrong.

  • In Jesus’ comments on divorce in Matthew
    19:4-6, he quoted the Creation story simply
    to show that male-female marriage should
    be permanent.  He did not state or imply
    that sexual intercourse should be restricted
    to male-female marriage only.

  • It seems likely that the early church
    (including Peter and Paul) thought that
    sexual immorality (porneia) comprised those
    sexual activities prohibited in the Old
    Testament.  But the many references to
    sexual immorality in the Bible still make
    perfect sense if they are restricted to incest,
    adultery, bestiality, and/or prostitution.  Note
    that the Bible does not prohibit a sexual
    relationship between an unmarried man and
    an unmarried woman except where incest is
    involved.


    * Bible references are:
    Incest  Leviticus 18:6-18; 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21
    Adultery  Exodus 20:14  Leviticus 18:20; 20:10
    Bestiality  Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16
    Prostitution  1 Corinthians 6:15-16
    Male-male sex  Leviticus 18: 22; 20:13   Romans 1:26-
    27  1 Corinthians 6:9  1 Timothy 1:10


Male-male penetration, slavery and culture

Some people say that the Bible’s acceptance of
slavery does not apply to all cultures at all times
because slavery was part of the Israelite
economic culture.  In contrast, they say that the
Biblical prohibition and criticism of male-male
penetration is not restricted to the Israelite
culture and applies to all cultures at all times.

They are wrong.  In fact, the Biblical prohibition
and criticism of male-male penetration was
mainly written for
cultural reasons.  See how
this conclusion has been
arrived at.  Therefore
the Bible’s prohibition and criticism of male-male
penetration applied only to the ancient Israelite
and Greek-Roman cultures and so
does not
apply to men today
.



Author: Colin Smith
Pro-slavery
arguments

Anti-male-male
penetration arguments
Moses and Paul
said that people
owning other
people as slaves
(property) is okay

Moses and Paul said that
male-male penetration is bad
Slavery was
accepted by
Moses, Paul and
the Israelite people
as a normal part of
their culture.  The
practice of slavery
by the Israelite
people was similar
to its practice in
surrounding
cultures but it was
kinder (e.g. rest
day every 7 days)

Male-male penetration was
condemned by Moses, Paul
and probably the Israelite
people.  This condemnation
was basically similar to its
condemnation in
surrounding cultures but
was wider (covered both the
active and passive
participants)
Jesus seems to
have accepted
slavery as a
normal part of his
culture, shown by
his parables
referring to slaves

Jesus probably agreed with
his culture’s view that male-
male penetration is bad
go to home  www.gaysandslaves.com
_