Sodomy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Removing Homosexuality from Sodom: Contextualizing Genesis 19 with Other Biblical Rape Narratives
2017
This analysis disputes common interpretations that the Sodom narrative (Genesis 19) is an anti-homosexual story by presenting it as part of a four-story arc about rape in the Bible. The three other stories discussed in addition to Sodom are as follows: the gang rape of the Levite's concubine (Judges 19), the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34), and the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13). Each of the four stories discussed in this analysis contain various types of sexual violence, such as male-to-male rape or attempted rape, female-to-male rape, and male-to-female rape; in each case, the rapes or attempted rapes lead to disastrous social consequences, which this analysis concludes is the overarching message to each of the four narratives. In addition, this analysis will consider how the Sodom narrative became incorrectly associated with homosexuality and the negative impact that this misinterpretation in American jurisprudence and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
Locating Sodomy & Imagining Sodomy
Sodomy Masculinity and Law in Medieval Literature (France and England, 1050-1230), 2004
Jordan argues that it is Peter Damian who first coined the term sodomia, though he notes that adjectival forms of the word can be found in earlier documents: "The central terms used by medieval Christian theologians to describe what we call 'sexual activity' cannot be translated into modern English. They condense in themselves different and in some ways briefer histories of category formation. Consider the terms luxuria, vitium sodomiticum, and peccatum contra naturam as they figure in Scholastic texts. It might be permissible to transliterate the last two as 'Sodomitic vice' and 'sin (or vice) against nature,' with appropriate warnings. But luxuria, the root term, cannot even be transliterated as 'luxury' without provoking misunderstandings each time" (Jordan, Invention of Sodomy, p. 29). 5. Jordan says it was inevitable that the resultant category would be anything but concrete or discrete: "The essential thing to notice in the processes by which 'Sodomy' was produced is that they first abolish details, qualifications, restrictions in order to enable an excessive simplification of thought. Then they condense a number of these simplifications into a category that looks concrete but that has in fact nothing more concrete about it than the grammatical form of a general noun" (Jordan, Invention of Sodomy, p. 29). 6. One of these diatribes is reproduced in the Prologue to this book; see also my article,
Australian Religion Studies Review, 1999
Christianity has made the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 a locus of homophobia. This is most dramatically evidenced in the words 'sodomy' and 'sodomite' being applied to male/male homoeroticism. However, rabbinic Judaism has read Sodom and Gomorrah as a locus of cruelty, inhospitality and xenophobia. While critical. scholarship has moved from traditional Christian understandings, discussion of Genesis 19 (and its parallel, Judges 19) is still couched in such terms as 'homosexual rape' and 'homosexuality'. The paper argues that readings of Genesis 19 and Judges 19 that highlight homosexuality as an interpretive device ignore the different historical and cultural context behind these texts and the contemporary politics in which these texts are enmeshed. Such readings overlook issues of patriarchy, compulsory heterosexuality and homosexual panic. The paper draws on anthropological literature concerning Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures to argue that male rape in Genesis 19 and Judges 19 is an act of homophobic violence signifying the abuse of outsiders and the breach of the community of Israel. Male rape serves to reinforce the heterosexuality of the insiders by inscribing outsiders as queer and queers as outsiders. The paper closes by exploring some implications of this argument in light of issues of racism and xenophobia arising from Pauline Hansen~ One Nation and the Wik High Court decision, and of the problem of homophobia, especially in our schools as exampled by the recent Christopher Tsakalos case in New South Wales. Homosexuality, Politics and Texts of Terror The story of Sodom and Gomorrah concerning their destruction by the deity, found in Genesis 19, has become, in Western culture, a classic example of what Mieke Bal calls an ideo-story, that is a narrative, taken out of context, "whose structure lends itself to be the receptacle of different ideologies" (Bal, 1988: 11). For Genesis
The Biblical Significance of Sodom and Gomorrah
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is biblically significant as the counterpoint to the story of the fallen angels and the Flood. Just as God punishes the angels for defiling human women, by imprisoning them and destroying their unfortunate progeny in a flood of water, God punishes the men of Sodom and Gomorrah for trying to defile the angels, by destroying their city with a rain of fire and brimstone. The core lesson to be learned from both cases: sinners are punished because they have "violated a major division of creation, the divide between spirituality and corporeality." Third essay on Genesis in the "Biblical Significance" series.
The stories in the Hebrew Bible are written in code. In the case of the Sodom story, the key that enables the reader to detect the message that the redactors of the story wanted to convey, is the practice of the kingdoms of the Ancient Near East to produce fresh citizens and slaves in human breeding grounds. Unfortunately, academics refuse to acknowledge the existence of the human breeding grounds, in spite of the fact that the practice is mentioned in the ancient Near Eastern texts, all relevant details are provided by the ancient Egyptian texts, and Plato devoted a part of his “Republic”, the famous ‘eugenics’ section, in what he calls “something Phoenician”, i.e., an ancient story or a story from the East.
Sodomy Law in Comparative Perspective
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, 2016
This article examines the legality of homosexual acts quantitatively in a cross-national perspective with a large sample of countries from 1972 to 2002. Employing path dependence as its theoretical framework, this work explains how political, economic, and legal institutions at the domestic and international levels affect the lives of individual citizens. The rights and privileges of individuals, the findings of this study indicate, are determined by a wide array of variables, including legal origin, economic development, religion, democratization, and the position of the nation in the international community. The authors use recently released cross-national data concerning decriminalization of homosexual intercourse, economic conditions, and political institutions. A generalized estimating equation analyzes decriminalization of homosexual acts. A Cox proportional hazards model examines how long it takes to introduce this legal reform. Last, this study also offers some important lessons about civil rights and liberties more generally.
Sodomy Masculinity and Law in Medieval Literature (France and England, 1050-1230)
2004
Jordan argues that it is Peter Damian who first coined the term sodomia, though he notes that adjectival forms of the word can be found in earlier documents: "The central terms used by medieval Christian theologians to describe what we call 'sexual activity' cannot be translated into modern English. They condense in themselves different and in some ways briefer histories of category formation. Consider the terms luxuria, vitium sodomiticum, and peccatum contra naturam as they figure in Scholastic texts. It might be permissible to transliterate the last two as 'Sodomitic vice' and 'sin (or vice) against nature,' with appropriate warnings. But luxuria, the root term, cannot even be transliterated as 'luxury' without provoking misunderstandings each time" (Jordan, Invention of Sodomy, p. 29). 5. Jordan says it was inevitable that the resultant category would be anything but concrete or discrete: "The essential thing to notice in the processes by which 'Sodomy' was produced is that they first abolish details, qualifications, restrictions in order to enable an excessive simplification of thought. Then they condense a number of these simplifications into a category that looks concrete but that has in fact nothing more concrete about it than the grammatical form of a general noun" (Jordan, Invention of Sodomy, p. 29). 6. One of these diatribes is reproduced in the Prologue to this book; see also my article,
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, 2014
The issue of human sexuality is a complex one, and it has been a controversial issue from time immemorial. Scholars have appealed to various evidences to support their arguments for or against any sexual issues they are interested in. One of the passages used to support or argue against homosexuality, for instance, is Gen 19 which contains the story of the destruction of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Traditionally, Sodom and Gomorrah were known and described as cities which God destroyed because of their sin of homosexuality. To call a man Sodomite is to refer to the person as a homosexual. This has been the interpretation of the Church until recently when certain scholars began to challenge this interpretation. Such scholars interpret Gen 19 differently in contrast to the orthodox interpretation. The sin of the people of Sodom is "inhospitality and not homosexuality" as this new interpretation proposes. Hence, this paper examines some of the passages relating to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old and New Testaments in order to assert the rightness or otherwise of the two interpretations given above. The methodology adopted is linguistic analysis and exegetical method. The study maintains that top on the list of sins in Gen 19 is homosexuality as it is clearly stated in the passage. It concludes that since the two angels came to Lot and not to the men of Sodom the people could not have been guilty of inhospitality as being proposed by scholars like Bartlett 1 and Phyllis Bird. 2
Journal of Creation, 2017
According to Scripture, Sodom was destroyed at the time of Abraham about 1900 bc on the biblical timeline. In this paper it is argued that the standard secular timeline diverges drastically from the biblical timeline in this era, and that the destruction of the cities of the land of Sodom would have been near the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (3000 bc or possibly earlier). Archaeologists therefore need to look for these cities much earlier on the secular timeline than is commonly believed. In this second installment on Sodom, we look at some implications of placing Sodom's destruction this early in secular history. Arguments are also presented against Tall el-Hammam as Sodom.