Leviticus 18

God decides it's time to stop detailing the myriad ways His people can burn His dinner and sets down some rules for behavior. The first is a no-brainer: don't commit incest. (Lot's daughters could have benefitted from this advice a couple of books back, but better late than ever I suppose.) Prohibitions against incest strike me as being redundant. Doesn't it go without saying? Is it really necessary to tell people not to have sex with their mothers? Are there any cultures in the world where incest is allowed? I'm sure the National Geographic Channel could track some down, but I'm gonna go assume that God doesn't really need to waste His breath on incest.

However, the ban on incest extends to nonblood family as well, so not only can't you pork your uncle, you can't pork his wife, either. Any in-laws, really. Sound advice for familial stability, but it makes for a boring Thanksgiving.

And no threesomes with a mother and her daughter. Not that, you know, anyone would even want to do such a thing. God just thought he'd mention it in case anyone ever invents porn.

God lists other things one shouldn't do: have your children give offerings to other Gods, sleep with your neighbor's wife, fuck animals--all of which have been covered previously. What God needs is some new material.

And that's where the gays come in.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as you would womankind," God says. "It is an abomination." Which means that technically God is cool with lesbianism. He also thinks it's hot. Very, very hot. 

What bothers the pro-gay crowd--of which I could count myself a member--is the cherry picking involved in picking up the no-homosexuality football and running with it. You may recall that many of the previous "abominations" centered on food yet conservative Christians can sit around a plate of shrimp cocktail debating whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry without fear of retribution. Somehow Jesus magically made beef stroganoff acceptable to eat but not homosexuality. Once again, Susan B. Anthony was right when she said, "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

I'm all for rationalization. How would any of us get through the day without it? But what I don't care for is obvious inconsistency. Christians will claim that even though Jesus wiped away the need for food-based abominations He maintained the social behavior ones. That explains why incest is still considered taboo. So far, so good. I'm with the Christians there.

But what about adultery?

Adulterous behavior is not only banned in the same book as the ban against homosexuality, it's banned just a few lines previous. And adultery has been mentioned unfavorably many times before. So I ask: where are the marches on Washington calling for laws making adultery illegal? Or calling for a constitutional amendment making it illegal for adulterers to marry?

Those laws will never be written. Because sometimes being consistent means changing your beliefs, and no one really wants to do that, especially when their religious views are at stake.