Many opponents of homosexuality cite Leviticus 18:22 to support their position. Why do many find
this to be inconsistent?

President Josiah Bartlet's biblically-based takedown of a conservative radio talk-show presenter (a thinly disguised Dr. Laura) who firmly defends her opposition to homosexuality by invoking the Hebrew Bible is one of the most popular "West Wing" video on YouTube. She specifically alludes to Leviticus 18:22, which is known as the "clobber passage." "It is a wickedness to lie with a guy as you would with a woman." As a result, the popular fictional president chastises her by interrogating her about other lines in the chapter. "Touching a dead pig's skin renders one unclean." 11:7 in Leviticus. Can the Washington Redskins still play football if they swear to wear gloves? Can Notre Dame pull it off? Is West Point capable? ... Is it okay if I burn my mother in front of a small family gathering since she's wearing clothes made from two different threads?" His incisive queries get no response from his interlocutor.

Television isn't the only medium where this rhetorical topic may be found. Senator Barack Obama spoke at a conference held by Sojourners, a Christian social justice group, in 2006. Along with detailing his personal spiritual path, Obama questioned conservative leaders' biblical invocations, asking, "Which sections of Scripture should guide our public policy?" Should we follow Leviticus' lead, which implies that slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is a sin?"

Arguments for same-sex marriage and associated civil rights are possibly the most heated and biblically inflected of the contemporary disputes in the American public space. The book of Leviticus in the Hebrew Bible is at the heart of these controversies. Opponents of LGBT rights make their case in biblical terms, with Leviticus 18:22 and other "clobber" texts, as well as wider theological assertions on God's side, often appearing on picket placards. "God hates fags," say members of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose leader, Reverend Fred Phelps, died in March.

Proponents of LGBT civil rights, on the other hand, have lately made their own scriptural counter-citation. Rejections of Leviticus are also cropping up during rallies, in addition to doctrinal pronouncements like those made by President Obama or the latest book or videos by Christian author and LGBT activist Matthew Vines. Rarely is a public demonstration held without at least a few members of the public, many of whom are Christians, carrying posters expressing what additional abominations God despises: mixed-fiber garments (Leviticus 19:19), pork (Leviticus 11:7), and the aforementioned shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). "Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as homosexuality are an abomination," according to a website dedicated to the topic. Why stop with anti-gay marriage protests?"

This argumentative maneuver is dubbed "argument by shrimp." It's simple to understand why this line of thinking appeals to both progressive Christians and non-religious individuals. It doesn't need anybody to figure out what "sleeping with a man as with a woman" means, or to decipher the meaning of "abomination" to make it seem less scary. In reality, it doesn't need much attention to the details of Leviticus 18:22. Instead, shrimp's argument succeeds by seeking to downplay the impact of the "anti-gay" text. The troublesome passage is surrounded by other biblical regulations that are indicated to be ethically indefensible (such as slavery), irrelevant (such as restrictions on touching pigskin or eating shellfish), or completely arbitrary (such as the prohibitions on touching pigskin or eating shellfish) (such as the prohibition on wearing clothing comprised of multiple different fibers). When most Christians go about their days wearing mixed-fiber apparel and ordering sweet-and-sour shrimp, what makes Leviticus 18:22 so special? Those who use Leviticus 18:22 for support are exposed to be hypocritical, unaware of the scripture they claim to revere, or selectively manipulating the Bible to confirm their own preconceptions in the absence of this continuous compliance.

However, despite the shrimp's seeming ability to overcome the obstacles of Leviticus 18:22, such a move may really cause more issues than it solves, especially for liberal Christians. The rhetorical pivot to some of the other commandments in the Hebrew Bible is effective because it assumes that practically everyone, regardless of their views on LGBT civil rights, believes that injunctions against shellfish and wool-linen mixes are absurd. Who in their right mind would believe in such a God?

However, many individuals, including Jews, believe that biblical laws are significant in determining what meals may be eaten and what garments can be worn. According to recent studies, about half of the world's Jews believe they are at least partly following the dietary rules. Even among relatively non-observant Jews, such numbers attest to the enduring relevance of dietary restrictions, despite the fact that this self-definition varies greatly. Far fewer modern Jews obey the rule barring the use of shatnez, or clothes made of both wool and linen, although the restriction is nevertheless observed by many historically observant Jews. While some observant Jews may do so for reasons other than divine commands, the divine nature of their numerous commitments is unmistakable for many others. God may, in fact, despise shrimp for these Jews.

As a result, shrimp's argument serves as an unwitting mocking of both Jews and Jewish law, whose roots may be seen in the texts hilariously presented as refutations of Leviticus 18:22. But, from the standpoint of public discourse, the erasure of Jews from the normative "we" assumed to make up the public square is arguably more worrisome. After all, shrimp's argument succeeds by appealing to the rational public, who, with the exception of a few "fundies," is assumed to be in on the joke. In this debate, the many Jews who revere their commandments and the God who gave them have no say.

There's also a difficulty for Christians who employ the shrimp metaphor. The dismissal of some of the Hebrew Bible's commandments, as well as the assumption that no reasonable person would follow them today, veers uncomfortably close to a supersessionist theological claim—one in which the old covenantal relationship between God and the people Israel has been "superseded" by a new Christ-centered covenant in which no outdated, immoral, or ridiculous commandments are imposed on anyone. Even though there are Jews who continue to keep their commandments, they do so in the false notion that the covenant under which the commandments were given is still in effect, while it is not, since Christ has abolished the law.

Without a certain, liberal American Christians, who have pioneered interfaith engagement with American Jews, do not intend to imply this. But, whether on purpose or not, shrimp's argument successfully incorporates this anti-Semitism, Jewish responsibility, and Jewish religion. If genuine interreligious dialogue starts with mutual respect for the other's beliefs and practices, this public stereotype may be causing more damage than good.

Beyond its consequences for Christian-Jewish relations, the shrimp debate presents Christians with a theological conundrum. After all, the biblical passages used in the argument—and, in some cases, mocked—come from the sacrosanct scripture canon of these same Christians. Christians who adopt this tactic successfully undercut the sacrality and normativity of their own holy scripture by utilizing these passages to call into question the biblically-based anti-homosexuality argument. While using these writings as instances of the immoral, useless, or nonsensical may be rhetorically useful in public argument, it also forces Christians to denigrate sections of their own Old Testament as immoral, irrelevant, or silly, undermining its hallowed character.

This isn't to say that a literal interpretation of Leviticus is the sole "holy" reading. Shrimp's argument, on the other hand, does not provide an alternative hermeneutic for the text; rather, it rejects it as irrelevant. Despite the fact that the argument aims to establish what the Old Testament is not—namely, a document containing rules that are both semantically literal and eternally binding—the answer fails to provide any insight into what the Old Testament is theologically. Is it sacrosanct in any way? How does the Bible work as a source of divine guidance for Christians, even in its oddest or most problematic commandments? What is the significance of its many injunctions? And, insofar as some of the Old Testament's commandments, even beyond the famous first ten, are frequently invoked as normative in their literal sense—for example, those concerning the status of immigrants—how does the Christian determine which commandments have this status and which should be dismissed when engaging in text-based, theo-political arguments? The allegation of selective biblical quotation, especially from the Hebrew Bible, is as relevant to liberal Christians as it is to conservative Christians, and it may be just as difficult to overcome.

It's logical that proponents of homosexual civil rights in the United States would utilize whatever weapons are available to them in the frequently hot and emotional debates—and at first look, the shrimp argument seems to have intriguing rhetorical potential. However, an argument that demands activists and sympathizers to actively insult Jews or Judaism, or Christians to diminish the value of their own holy book, does not hold up under scrutiny. Given its drawbacks, proponents of LGBT rights should abandon this rhetorical device, lest they end up repeating the same set of incorrect interpretations.

Step-by-step explanation

On YouTube, one of the most famous "West Wing" video is President Josiah Bartlet's biblically-based takedown of a conservative radio talk-show presenter (played by a thinly disguised Dr. Laura), who firmly defends her anti-homosexuality stance by invoking the Hebrew Bible. She specifically alludes to Leviticus 18:22, which has come to be known as the "clobber passage." 'You must not lay with a man as you would lie with a woman; it is an abomination.' In response, the popular fictional president excoriates her by asking questions about other passages that are related to this particular chapter. A person becomes dirty after coming into contact with the skin of a dead pig." Leviticus 11:7 is a verse from the Old Testament. Is it possible for the Washington Redskins to continue to play football if they swear to wear gloves? Is Notre Dame up to the task? Is West Point up to the task? ... "Can I burn my mother in front of a small group of family members because she is wearing clothes made from two different threads?" His sharp inquiries leave his interlocutor stunned and unable to respond.

This is a rhetorical subject that is not exclusive to television. At a symposium held by the Christian social justice group Sojourners in 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama shared his thoughts on social justice. "Which chapters of Scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama said, after outlining his personal spiritual path. "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?" Should we follow the teachings of Leviticus, which say that slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is a sin?"

Arguments for same-sex marriage and associated civil rights are among the most heated and biblically inflected issues now taking place in the American public sphere, and there is no better example than this. The book of Leviticus from the Hebrew Bible is at the heart of these controversies. Opponents of LGBT rights sometimes use biblical texts to argue their points, and their picket placards frequently include verses such as Leviticus 18:22 and other "clobber" passages, as well as wider theological declarations on God's side. A simple, recognizable, and vividly cruel billboard from the Westboro Baptist Church—whose leader, the Reverend Fred Phelps, died only a few months ago—has made them famous. "God hates fags," reads one of their posters.

The LGBT civil rights movement has lately responded with some biblical counter-citations of its own, according to proponents of gay civil rights. Additionally, rejections of Leviticus are appearing at rallies in addition to theological remarks such as those made by President Obama, or the latest book or videos by Christian author and LGBT activist Matthew Vines, who are both against the book of Leviticus. The public demonstration is rarely complete without at least a few members of the public, including a significant number of Christians, holding signs declaring what other abominations God despises, such as clothing made of mixed fibers (Leviticus 19:19), pork (Leviticus 11:7), and the aforementioned shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). The subject of homosexuality is covered in detail on a website dedicated to the subject, with questions such as "Shrimps, crabs, lobsters, clams, mussels, all of these are an abomination before the Lord, just as homosexuals are an abomination." "Why should we limit ourselves to denouncing homosexual marriage?"

This rhetorical maneuver will be referred to as the "argument by shrimp." It may be simple to see why this line of argument has gained popularity among progressive Christians as well as non-religious individuals in recent years. The phrase "sleeping with a man as with a woman" does not need anybody to figure out what it means, nor does it necessitate anyone deciphering the meaning of the word "abomination" in order to make it seem less sinister. In fact, it needs little or no engagement with the specifics of Leviticus 18:22 in order to do this. To the contrary, shrimp's argument succeeds by seeking to diminish the impact of the passage that is considered "anti-gay." In addition to the troubling verse, it is surrounded by other biblical commandments that, it is implied, are morally untenable (such as slavery), irrelevant (such as prohibitions on touching pigskin or eating shellfish), or completely arbitrary (such as the prohibition on touching pigskin or eating shellfish) (such as the prohibition on wearing clothing comprised of multiple different fibers). What is it about Leviticus 18:22 that makes it so remarkable at a time when the majority of Christians are content to go about their days wearing mixed-fiber apparel and ordering sweet-and-sour shrimp? The lack of regular adherence of Leviticus 18:22 reveals those who use it for support to be disingenuous, uninformed of the scripture they claim to revere, or very selective in how they apply the Bible to promote their own preconceptions.

The shrimp argument, despite its seeming capacity to overcome the issues of Leviticus 18:22, may in fact cause more problems than it solves, especially for liberal Christians who are opposed to the shrimp argument. The persuasiveness of the rhetorical pivot to some of the other prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible is based on the idea that practically everyone, regardless of their views on LGBT civil rights, believes that injunctions against shellfish and wool-linen mixes are absurd and should be overturned. What sort of naive person would put their faith in such a God, anyway?

Despite this, there are many individuals who believe that biblical laws are significant when it comes to issues such as what meals may be eaten and what garments can be worn, including Jews, who are among them. The majority of Jews throughout the globe believe they are at least somewhat compliant with the Ten Commandments regarding food, according to recent research. Despite the fact that this self-definition varies greatly, such numbers attest to the enduring relevance of dietary restrictions, especially among Jews who are not strictly adherent to the Torah. The commandment barring the wearing of shatnez, which is clothing composed of both wool and linen, is observed by significantly fewer modern Jews than it is by many historically observant Jews. However, the restriction is still observed by many traditionally devout Jews. And although some observant Jews may do so for reasons other than following divine instructions, there are many more who would unquestionably assert that the manifold duties they bear are the result of divine mandates. God may, in fact, despise shrimp, according to some Jews.

As a result, the shrimp's argument accidentally serves as a mocking of both Jews and Jewish law, the roots of which may be traced back to the scriptures that are hilariously presented as refutations of Leviticus 18:22. In terms of public discourse, however, what is probably more concerning is the exclusion of Jews from the normative "we" that is thought to form the public square. After all, the shrimp's argument is successful because it appeals to the sensible public, which, with the exception of a few "fundies," is assumed to be in on the joke. The many Jews who hold their commandments and the God who gave them in high regard have been denied a voice in this debate.

There's also a difficulty for Christians who make use of the shrimp trope: it's offensive. The denigration of some of the commandments of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the assumption that no reasonable person would observe such things any longer, comes dangerously close to a supersessionist theological claim—a theology in which the old covenantal relationship between God and the people of Israel has been "superseded" by a new Christ-centered covenant in which no outdated, immoral, or ridiculous commandments are incumbent upon anyone—that is, a theology in which the old covenantal relationship between God and the However, according to this formulation, even if there are still Jews who observe their commandments, they are only doing so because they have the incorrect belief that the covenant under which the commandments were made remains in effect, when in fact it does not, because Christ has abolished the law.

Liberal American Christians, who have been in the forefront of initiating interfaith conversations with American Jews, have made it clear that they have no intention of saying anything like this. However, whether it is done on purpose or not, the shrimp's argument essentially embodies this repudiation of Jews, Jewish responsibility, and Jewish religion. If genuine interreligious cooperation starts with mutual respect for the practices and beliefs of the other, it is possible that this public cliche is causing much more damage than good in the world today.

Indeed, even outside its consequences for Christian-Jewish relations, the shrimp argument presents Christians with an unwieldy theological conundrum. The biblical passages that are being employed—and, indeed, ridiculed—by the argument are writings that are part of the hallowed scripture canon that these very same Christians hold to be authoritative. By utilising these texts to call into question the biblically-based anti-homosexuality argument, the Christians who apply this method effectively undermine the sacrality and normativity of their own holy scripture, according to the authors of the texts. In public discussion, although using these verses as instances of what is immoral, irrelevant, or nonsensical may be effective rhetorical strategy, it also requires Christians to discard as immoral, irrelevant, or silly portions of their own Old Testament, therefore undermining the holy significance of that book.

It is important to note that this does not imply that the sole "holy" interpretation of Leviticus is a literal one. However, the shrimp's argument does not give an alternative hermeneutic for the text; rather, it just rejects it as insignificant and moves on. The answer, while attempting to establish what the Old Testament is not—namely, a literature that contains commands that are both semantically literal and eternally binding—provides no indication of what the Old Testament is in terms of its theological content. In what way is it considered sacred? Is it possible to explain how the Bible, even in its oddest and most unsettling commands, serves as a conduit for divine teaching for Christians? What is the significance of its many injunctions? When it comes to Old Testament commandments, even those that go beyond the famous first ten, some of which are frequently invoked as normative in their literal sense—for example, those regarding the status of immigrants—how does a Christian determine which commandments have this status and which are worthy of being dismissed when engaged in text-based, theo-political arguments? Selected biblical reference, especially from the Hebrew Bible, is a charge that is as applicable to liberal Christians as it is to their more conservative counterparts, and it may prove to be just as difficult to overcome.

It's understandable that proponents of gay civil rights in the United States would use whatever tools they had at their disposal in the often heated and emotional debates about gay civil rights in the country—and at first glance, the argument by shrimp may appear to have tantalizing rhetorical possibilities. Unstable arguments, on the other hand, are arguments that need activists and sympathizers to successfully insult Jews and Judaism, or that require Christians to devalue the meaning of their own holy book in order to be effective. Aware of the dangers of using this rhetorical device, proponents of LGBT rights should avoid using it in the future, lest they find themselves just substituting one set of flawed readings for another.