'The Natural Eunuch'

[SlightlyMetaphysical]

I found this article while browsing on the internet, which argues quite convincingly that one classification of the classical word 'eunuch' is of 'natural eunuchs', men who have all the physical equipment for sex but won't have sex with women: http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

It argues based on this that 'natural eunuch' was the classical word for homosexuals, as long as they weren't too out. Of course, the writer hadn't heard of asexuality, and asexuls match this description much more. Or, if it did include gay men, asexuals of the time would probably come into this category as well.

One interesting side-effect of this idea is that it would then reassure the christian asexuals who come to AVEN occasionally asking for directions to biblical ideas about asexuality. This article, written by a christian who's justifying homosexuality, touches on the biblical references to natural eunuchs and Jesus' acceptance of them: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html

I may write a blog post about this, but if I do, I'm going to have to do more research, so tell me what you think, and if you have any suggestions for places I could look.

[Isaac]

Reading these references I find the recurrent dichotomy fallacy not-straight-thus-gay. If they were true and it included homosexuals, a fortiori asexuals. With Storm's model in mind, we may be dealing with heterosexuality axis, forgetting homosexuality one. So, homosexual and asexuals would be eunuchs, while heterosexuals and bisexuals not, ain't they?

[Guest Heligan]

I havent read the article yet, but one thing that strikes me is that Im sure I heard something about 'sexuality' being a fairly new concept, acts were classified as good or bad in the Bible etc but not sexuality itself. For instance sodomy would not just mean homosexual sex, it would equally mean hetero and homosexual sexual acts. I cant remember where I heard the argument though.

Anyhow just a thought- I will go read your article link now!

EDITED:-

Well Im not convinced... though it does focus on the weirdness of the story of Sodom (which is rather odd to present day morality anyway- giving up your virgin daughters for rape for instance) While hospitality maybe an issue, I dont think we can deduce from that, that it is the only issue... of course it is very difficult to work out what cultural norms were being violated, there are biblical references to Sodom in other books as well so that might help (if we are seeing the Bible as the word of God and not of one cultural set of norms bashing up against another, that is).

Still apparently you have to accept all or nothing if you go with the whole 'word of God' thing... so this interpretation in Jude seems to mess the argument they are making up pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Jude 1:7, records that both Sodom and Gomorrah were "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Still strange flesh could mean anything in the context really; all we know is that it is referring to the situation in Sodom and Gomorrah and the only sex/flesh mentioned is sodomy...sodomy is generally taken to include things like, buggery/bestiality/oral sex... (none of which are exclusively homosexual by definition of course, so its quite true that the Bible may not be singling out homosexuality specifically in these passages).

Of course if the acts are sins, it doesnt help homosexual Christians who want to practice their orientation.. which I guess is what all the wriggling is about in the article. Im not sure how it helps to try to reclassify homosexuals as eunuchs, if they still cant have sex because the act itself is a sin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuchs

I have a feeling there are further verses about man lying with man- but I will have to go look into that and see if my memory is correct.

EDITED:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_...hamic_religions (Leviticus is pretty damning- for those wishing to argue the Bible approves of practising homosexual relationships whether loving or none loving)

[Sally]

I havent read the article yet, but one thing that strikes me is that Im sure I heard something about 'sexuality' being a fairly new concept, acts were classified as good or bad in the Bible etc but not sexuality itself. For instance sodomy would not just mean homosexual sex, it would equally mean hetero and homosexual sexual acts. I cant remember where I heard the argument though.

Anyhow just a thought- I will go read your article link now!

You're right. In the Tanakh (Old Testament), the emphasis was on actions, not actors.

[Whynotbeme2]

It is interesting how many people view orientation like a light switch: gay or straight, never both never neither.

I had never thought of "natural eunuch" that way... nor had ever given it any thought at all >.>

very interesting.

[queerunity]

I think the born eunuch seems to refer more to asexuality than homosexuality. However, this is a huge deal in proving that Jesus was open to queer sexuality and did not feel all must be heterosexual.

I wonder though if by born eunuch it meant intersex people who were born either without a penis or without a fully functioning penis?

[Isaac]

I think the born eunuch seems to refer more to asexuality than homosexuality. However, this is a huge deal in proving that Jesus was open to queer sexuality and did not feel all must be heterosexual.

I wonder though if by born eunuch it meant intersex people who were born either without a penis or without a fully functioning penis?

Castrated men had a fully functioning penis, and was very appreciated by the ladies for having sex without pregnancy risk. So, if penis was not a condition for castrated eunuchs, it can't be for born eunuchs.

[queerunity]

You are saying castrated men would get erections? It could still refer to intersex people with penises but maybe ones that did not receive erections or people born with a low sex drive?

[Isaac]

I learned it form an expert in castrati singers, who were castrated in order to keep their childhood soprano voices but with the power of an adult body. This musician told me that castrati was deemed the best candies by ladies, since they may sweeten but does not fatten, according to a 17th century saying.

Born eunuchs might be what you hypothesize, Queerunity; I don't know. But surely Jesus was open to non-heterosexual because of the except we are considering in this thread. If he was open to queer sexualities beyond asexuality, I don't know.

[queerunity]

Well the verses certainly hold a lot of promise to the notion that he was indeed accepting of queer sexuality.

[Cynthia Meg]

Reading these references I find the recurrent dichotomy fallacy not-straight-thus-gay. If they were true and it included homosexuals, a fortiori asexuals. With Storm's model in mind, we may be dealing with heterosexuality axis, forgetting homosexuality one. So, homosexual and asexuals would be eunuchs, while heterosexuals and bisexuals not, ain't they?

Eunuchs probably referred to many types of people who didn't fit the heterosexual norm. Although this is speculation, I think that born eunuchs refer to:

1. Those who are intersexual (born with both male and female genitalia or ambiguous genitalia)

2. Those who are asexual

3. Those who are sterile (able to have sex but not able to procreate)

4. Those who are homosexual

5. Those who are bisexual

6. Those who are unable to have sex due to a severe disability (such as paralysis)

Man-made eunuchs probably refer to:

1. Those who are circumcised

2. Those who are injured in such a way that they cannot have sex

Eunuchs preserved for the Lord are probably:

1. Those who are celebet (such as Paul the apostle, though he's never referred to as a eunuch)

Again, these are only guesses.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Arca nine Huggles
Merged double-post?

[Guest member25959]

2009 was an interesting year.

Locking thread, Necromancy.

Arca nine Huggles

SPFA Mod