Third post: CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, AND HOMOSEXUALITY--- By J. Boswell

In this book, Boswell makes several arguments throughout which provide a good basis of a defense of homosexuality in Orthodox Christianity. One of these arguments is that of translation, a stance which Boswell defends with various examples of theological writers ranging from St. John Chrysostom to Clement of Alexandria not being able to choose a meaning amongst themselves. Boswell also highlights the fact that many people have been and continue to face intolerance, and homosexuals are one of the groups, including Jews, who have faced intolerance to some degree for much of history. This serves as a lead-in to his next argument, that Urban v.s. Rural tolerance levels have also played a large role in the acceptance of homosexuality in society as well as in Orthodoxy. Boswell then uses as examples Rome and Constantinople in ancient times: when both societies became more Rural, tolerance of gays and other groups plummeted. Yet another issue that Boswell brings up is that of homosexuality and the view of whether it is "natural" or "unnatural." This then progresses to the argument of people being designated for their unnatural-ness or nonconformity, as an example, Boswell cites the fact that most people think of Oscar Wilde as being gay and having a lover of the same sex, illustrating the simple intolerance that has permeated into Orthodoxy when religious interpreters and theologians impose their views onto Religion. He then continues, observing quite brilliantly  that "a voice not in harmony with that of 'the people' was ipso facto out of harmony with God and hence punishable." Boswell then cites the sources which he uses in forming his observations: these include 1. Scriptural tradition, 2. social and intellectual factors relating to early Christian opinion on the subject, and 3. theological objections to homosexuality among some of the Church Fathers. Delving straight into the Bible, Boswell then visits some of the texts which are commonly cited by anti-homosexual proponents and goes about destroying their arguments. In the story of Sodom, there are four theories as to why the city was destroyed including inhospitality to angels of the Lord, attempting to rape said angels, and homosexuality. Of these, most scholars put the most weight in the argument that Sodom was destroyed because of its inhospitable treatment of visitors sent by the Lord. Likewise, Boswell argues that of the sins of the inhabitants of Sodom, homosexuality is never mentioned! Continuing, Boswell observes that Jesus Himself never actually makes an argument against homosexuals either, instead often focusing on the sin of idolatry. In fact, another source of anti-homosexual feeling in Leviticus is similarly unjustified, says Boswell, instead saying that theologians and the Bible are only against homosexuality when the nature of a person is perverted in the action. This means, Boswell argues, that they are against heterosexuals undertaking homosexual acts as only this would be a perversion of a person. Concluding his Chapter on the Scriptures, Boswell quickly moves to the New Testament, saying that it "takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality." Saying simply this would not constitute a good argument though, and Boswell recognizes this, going on to say that St. Paul's condemnation of sexual excesses speaks as much about heterosexuality as homosexuality. In the next Chapter, Boswell states that even St. John Chrysostom, an anti-gay force often cited in anti-homosexual arguments, "admired intensely" the historic gay passions of the early Greeks and even "considered homosexual attraction perfectly normal." However, Boswell does look at it from the anti-homosexuality side, saying that their biggest advantage is the issue of violation of gender expectations. This is best exemplified by St. Cyprian who was against men acting in women's roles on the stage. On the opposite end of the stick, interpretations of Plato and other people who may have had influences on early Christian thought were very heated with St. Clement of the mind that Plato was clearly anti-homosexuality, but St. Theodoret of Cyrus just as seriously believed that Plato was pro-homosexuality. Boswell also highlighted several saints who have been argued as being in gay relationships or promoted homosexual attitudes. These include St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas, St. Paulinus and Ausonius, David and Johnathan and several others. Boswell also provides evidence that homosexual prostitution, distinctly different on principle but in ways the same, was not outlawed in Byzantium until the 6th century, two centuries after Orthodox Christianity became the national religion there. In concluding yet another Chapter, Boswell charismatically remarked that the examples of the tolerating would triumph over the intolerant, and "that Christian... attitudes would be focused on the quality of the love, not the gender of the parties involved or the biological function of their affection." The numbers of those tolerant towards homosexuality even numbered Saint John Damascene among other more Latin Saints. In drawing his book to a close, Boswell puts forward a couple more arguments: that those who condemned homosexual behavior also condemned such common place things as lending at interest, shaving, regular bathing, practicing circumcision and several other things. These condemnations were, Boswell argues, "due to personal prejudice, misinformation, or an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible." Finally, in his conclusion, Boswell observes "Homosexual passions... were celebrated in spiritual as well as carnal contexts." With this parting shot that has perfectly synthesized his previous arguments and information that he sought to incorporate into those arguments, Boswell succeeds in effectively communicating his thesis: that social intolerance's towards homosexuals from society permeated into Orthodoxy through a handful of writers and theologians writing from their own biases.