Is God a Lesbian?

Fundamentalists always cite the Bible when they get worked up about anything, especially sex.  Even more so when the subject is homosexuality.  Recently, during a press conference a "born again" football player declared that the Bible says, "Homosexuality is a sin."  He was promptly declared a homophobe by the politically correct, the modern-day equivalent of being denounced as a witch.

Whatever his feelings about gays may be, our born-again gridiron hero is technically correct -- the bible does say that homosexuality is a sin.  Then again, according to the Bible all sorts of things are sins, including telling a lie, working on the Sabbath, and hating.  And let us not forget the Ten Commandments, which forbid coveting, adultery, stealing, idolatry, and just about any other way to have fun on a Saturday night.

While the faithful are always eager to share the Bible’s wisdom with us heathen, they don’t always get it right.  The Bible is a complex document, and very easy to misinterpret.  Some of its most famous passages are almost always misquoted and misunderstood.  A close reading of the Bible reveals that some of the scripture we’ve taken for granted are not quite what they seem.  Take our friend the football player.  He declares that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  Well, that is not entirely true.

The relevant passage in Leviticus (Chapter 22) declares all sorts of activities sinful including the admonition that a "man shall not lie with another man."  Lie in this case being a euphemism for sex, not SOP for political ads.  However, while quite adamant on the subject of men "lieing" with men, there’s nothing in Leviticus about women lieing with women.  So, technically, only male homosexuality is sinful -- women can lie with each other all they want (which they already do when the conversation turns to weight and dress size).

Why this discrepancy?  Feminists argue that men wrote the Bible at a time when women were little more than chattel.  Other than performing their “wifely duties” and bearing children, women were not thought of as sexual beings in their own right.  Thus sexism is the standard explanation offered for the Bible’s lack of clarity on the subject of women and their “gal pals.”  This is a plausible answer, but is it really that simple?  Perhaps there is another possibility.  Consider the following:

Most of us are familiar with this passage from the Book of Ruth (chapter 16):  "Wither thou goest, I will go."  This quote is often used as a paradigm of wifely devotion -- a woman who will always stand by her man.  However, both thou and I were women.  Ruth spoke these words of devotion to her mother-in-law Naomi.  Naomi told Ruth to return to her own people after the death of her husband (Naomi’s son).  Ruth refused, and stood by her mother-in-law as they journeyed to Bethlehem.  Thus Ruth chose to stay with a woman to whom she was no longer related rather than return to her own family.  (Not wanting to be with the family isn’t too unusual, but Ruth was clearly fond of her mother-in-law – now that’s a miracle.)

And what of our friend’s ultimate hero?  Dubya’s favorite philosopher?  Consider the story of Jesus.  A woman named Mary, who never had sexual intercourse with a man, becomes pregnant through divine intervention and gives birth to the most perfect human being in history.  Let’s face it, if this isn't a lesbian wish-fulfillment fantasy, what is?

Even in modern times, it's fairly easy to see which side the big Guy (Gal?) is on.  Consider Queen Victoria, the paragon of puritanical rectitude.  When the Queen still had the power to veto legislation, a bill was sent forth from Parliament outlawing all homosexual behavior.  Victoria removed all references to female homosexuality claiming that there was no such thing.  Did Ol' Vicky have another motive?  Will historians one day uncover Queen Victoria's secret?  (Sorry, I have Pun-Turrets syndrome, when a bad pun pops into my head I am compelled to say it aloud or put it on paper – always followed by feelings of intense shame and self-loathing.)

For years, the true believers told us that the AIDS virus was God's punishment for homosexuality.  Male homosexuals are a high-risk group for the disease, but not lesbians.  Think about it -- AIDS is primarily spread through direct contact with bodily fluids, usually through blood contact, sexual intercourse or sharing dirty needles.  Lesbians tend to have limited body fluid contact.  The only contact tends to be oral, and guess what?  Tests have shown that saliva kills the AIDS virus on contact.  So, when it comes to AIDS, monogamous lesbians are probably the safest group of all.

In other words, God apparently hates fags, but has no problem with dykes.

Why this obvious favoritism towards the sisters of Sappho?  Is it just that God’s another horny guy who gets off watching chicks pawing each other?  Does this account for the inexplicable popularity of Women's Golf?  Lilith Fair?  Flannel shirts?  Howard Stern?  Or is something else afoot?  It is simply too coincidental that lesbians get all the breaks.  Maybe our friends among the faithful have been saying the wrong prayer all these years, perhaps it should be God, who art our mother in heaven, hallowed be her name?

Is God a lesbian?  I certainly hope so.  In fact, if there is a God I hope she turns out to be a big fat black dyke.  Imagine the shock, the horror, when the Pope, Jerry Falwell, William Bennett, Pat Buchanan and our friend the football player get to heaven and find that God isn’t quite the deity they expected.  What would their reaction be if, instead of a big white man with a long beard, they climbed to the top of the celestial stair and found the lord’s throne occupied by Bessie Smith or Shirley from What’s Happening? 

It almost makes one wish for a heaven.

Back to Rants, etc.