Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs.
Would it surprise you to discover that some eunuchs were gay or lesbian?

Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs. Explore the following Links about eunuchs.

1. In History And In Scripture, Eunuchs Are Sometimes Gay Men Or Lesbians. Eunuchs are not always castrated men.

2. The Ethiopian Eunuch is a wonderful example, in scripture, of a gay man getting saved.

3. Jesus taught that there are three classes of eunuchs. Born eunuchs did not make a personal choice to be a eunuch.

Additional Eunuch Links are at the bottom of this page.

Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs. The Hebrew word for eunuch is saris. The word saris referred to both castrated and physically intact eunuchs. The word saris also referred to both male and female eunuchs.

The Babylonian Talmud offers an explanation about Jewish priests who are saris-eunuch by nature [born eunuchs], as distinguished from physically castrated men.

“Mishnah. If a priest who was a saris by nature [born eunuch] 7 married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right of eating terumah... It might have been assumed that only one who is capable of propagation is entitled to bestow the right of eating 16 and that he who is not capable of propagating is not entitled to bestow the right of eating; hence we were taught [that even the saris (born eunuch) may bestow the right].”

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth, Folio 81a. This Link will open in a new page.

But a born eunuch, according to the Rabbis, is capable of propagating and is allowed to bestow, on his wife, the right of eating the heave offering. Only a born eunuch, who is a priest, can confer upon his wife, the right of eating terumah.

They were not physically castrated. They were physically whole but still considered to be “a saris [eunuch] by nature” or born eunuch.

How could men be considered same sex attracted eunuchs if they married a woman? Is it possible same sex attracted eunuchs married in order to fit in? Is it possible same sex attracted eunuchs married because the call to serve God was so strong they were willing to attempt to sublimate their same sex desires?

Is it possible same sex attracted eunuchs married, thinking, wrongly, that marriage to a woman would "cure them" of their same sex attractions?

Is it possible that God's command to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" exerted such power over Jewish males that same sex attracted eunuchs married to fulfill God's procreation command?

Because they were in the Jewish temple, the eunuchs Jeremiah mentions (Jeremiah 34:15-19) would not have been castrated men. They were “born eunuchs.” They were not physically castrated or genitally deformed. They were anatomically whole but were still considered eunuchs, different from normal men. Perhaps they were same sex attracted eunuchs. 2500 years after the fact, no one knows for sure.

The Talmud informs us that some “born eunuchs” became priests and married women. Whether these eunuch priests were same sex attracted eunuchs is open to debate. Further, the Talmud informs us that a priest who is not capable of propagating (fathering children) is not entitled to bestow, on his wife, the right of eating Terumah, the heave offering. But a saris priest, a born eunuch, can bestow, on his wife, the right of eating the heave offering.

Therefore, a born eunuch is capable of procreation, according to the Babylonian Talmud.

Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs. The Babylonian Talmud as a written document, is approximately 2000 years old. It conveys the views of ancient Judaism hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. These views were assembled into written form around the time of Christ.

“R. Joseph said: It must have been such a saris [eunuch] 6 of whom I heard Ammi saying. 'He who is afflicted from birth...’ Our Rabbis taught: Who is a congenital saris [a born eunuch]? 13 Any person who is twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. 14 And even if he produced them afterwards he is deemed to be a saris [born eunuch] in all respects. And these are his characteristics: He has no beard, his hair is lank, and his skin is smooth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Judah b. Jair: 15 Any person whose urine produces no froth; some say: He who urinates without forming an arch; some say: He whose semen is watery; and some say: He whose urine does not ferment. Others say: He whose body does not steam after bathing in the winter season. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: 15 He whose voice is abnormal so that one cannot distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman.

What woman is deemed to be incapable of procreation? - Any woman who is twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. 14 And even if she produces them afterwards she is deemed to be a woman incapable of procreation in all respects. And these are her characteristics: She has no breasts and suffers pain during copulation... R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One whose voice is deep so that one cannot distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman.”

Bablylonian Talmud On Eunuchs, Tractate Yebamoth, 80. This Link will open in a new page.

“The saris [born eunuch] was mentioned in the same way as the woman who is incapable of procreation; as the woman's incapacity is due to an act of heaven so must that of the saris [born eunuch] be an act of heaven; and this anonymous [Mishnah] is in agreement with R. Akiba who stated [that halizah applies] only to a man-made [saris (a physically castrated man) but] not [to one afflicted] by the hand of heaven [a born eunuch].”

Is it possible that female saris were also same sex attracted eunuchs? The Rabbis seem to believe the female saris was as much an act of heaven (born that way) as the male saris which makes it a viable possibility.

Bablylonian Talmud On Eunuchs, Tractate Yebamoth, 80. This Link will open in a new page.

“Who regards a girl, who was only subsequently found to be a saris [eunuch], as having been a saris and consequently also of age from the moment she was twelve years and one day old.”

Bablylonian Talmud On Eunuchs, Tractate Yebamoth, 80. Scroll Down To Notes 29 & 36. This Link will open in a new page.

Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs. The Babylonian Talmud describes born eunuchs in six ways. Why use so many descriptors unless born eunuchs (gay men and lesbian women) were a relatively common and accepted phenomenon in ancient Israel?

1. A congenital saris (eunuch)

2. A saris (eunuch) by nature

3. A born saris (eunuch)

4. A saris (eunuch) afflicted from birth

5. A saris (eunuch) by an act of heaven

6. A saris (eunuch) afflicted by the hand of heaven

1. Born eunuchs were not physically castrated by men. Could they have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

2. The born eunuch's condition was an innate condition, by God’s choice. Could they have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

3. Born eunuchs did not make a personal choice to be a eunuch. Could they have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

4. Born eunuchs were physically intact and capable of producing semen. Could they have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

5. Born eunuchs were generally uninterested in procreation or emotionally or psychologically unable to procreate, although he or she had the physical equipment for procreation. Could they have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

6. The Rabbis recognized that some women were born eunuchs, apparently uninterested in procreation or emotionally or psychologically unable to procreate, by an act of heaven.

   Could these saris-women have been same sex attracted eunuchs, what we now call lesbians?

"Many are eunuchs; and these panders, serve without suspicion those that wish to be free to enjoy their pleasures, because of the belief that they are unable to indulge in lust.

But a true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure.” [with a woman].

Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus, (The Instructor), III. IV. This Link will open in a new page.

Again, Clement speaks of eunuchs, referring to the followers of Basilides and their view of Matthew 19:11-12.

“The Valentinians, who hold that the union of man and woman is derived from the divine emanation in heaven above, approve of marriage.

The followers of Basilides, [a Gnostic] on the other hand, say that when the apostles asked whether it was not better not to marry, the Lord replied: "Not all can receive this saying; there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth, others are so of necessity."

And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men, from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman; and those who are naturally so constituted do well not to marry.” [a woman]. - Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, III. I.

1. The eunuch condition is common (“many are eunuchs”)

2. True eunuchs (born eunuchs) are “not unable but unwilling” to indulge in pleasure (with a woman).

3. Born eunuchs have “a natural sense of repulsion from a woman.”

4. A natural sense of repulsion from marrying a woman is an inborn trait, not a chosen lifestyle.

5. Men who are born this way do well not to marry (a woman).

Clement quotes the followers of Basilides on this issue, as if he agrees with their view on born eunuchs (that they are born with a natural sense of repulsion from a woman), although he would certainly not agree with these Gnostics on much else.

Clement lived and ministered in an age when same sex relationships between men were a common occurrance. However, there is little historical evidence to indicate that ancient same sex relationships were similar to the committed, faithful, noncultic same sex relationships with which we are familiar in the twenty first century.

It does not strain credulity to believe that the eunuchs Clement and Basilides described were same sex attracted eunuchs.

“For there are eunuchs which were made eunuchs from their mother's womb, I should very much like to be able to say something bold about eunuchs. Be not proud, ye who are eunuchs by nature".

---

Gregory of Nazianzus, AD 329-389, addressed the topic of born eunuchs.

---

"For, in point of self-restraint, this is perhaps unwilling. For it has not come to the test, nor has your self-restraint been proved by trial [a man who has no sexual interest in women does not struggle with lust for women].

For the good which is by nature is not a subject of merit; that which is the result of purpose is laudable... Since then, natural chastity is not meritorious [being born with a natural sense of repulsion from a woman or without lust for a woman, through no choice of your own, is not meritorious], I demand something else from the eunuchs. Do not go a whoring in respect of the Godhead. Having been wedded to Christ [he is speaking to saved eunuchs-gay people who have trusted Jesus Christ], do not dishonour Christ.”

Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 37. XVI -XVII. This Link will open in a new page.

1. Gregory recognized the reality, that eunuchs by nature were different than castrasted, manmade eunuchs. Could it be that same sex attracted eunuchs worshipped openly in Gregory's church?

2. Eunuchs by nature, physically intact men who possessed natural chastity [no sexual interest in women], existed in Gregory’s time, AD 330-389. Could the eunuchs in Gregory's congregation, who possessed natural chastity, have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

3. Gregory understood, more than 1600 years ago, that the condition of being a eunuch by nature was innate and not the result of a personal choice.

4. A physically intact, eunuch by nature, who had no sexual interest in women [no lust for women], had no right to feel pride since, according to Gregory, he had not chosen his condition.

5. Gregory recognized that a eunuch by nature, a man with no sexual interest in women, still faced the potential problem of lust through sexual temptation with men. Thus Gregory's warning against going a whoring from God, perhaps as shrine prostitutes, where men had sex with men, to worship the fertility goddess. could the eunuchs in Gregory's congregation have been same sex attracted eunuchs?

6. Gregory loved his people enough to lead eunuchs or gay folk, to saving faith in Jesus Christ. He then encouraged them, as members of his congregation, to live for the Lord who loved them and bought them with His blood. Born eunuchs-gay people, were welcome in Gregory’s congregation. Are gay people welcome in your congregation?

“If anyone in sickness has undergone surgery at the hands of physicians or has been castrated by barbarians,"

---

Council of Nicea

---

"let him remain among the clergy [eunuchs can continue in ministry according to the Council of Nicea]...

...so too if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters, but have been found worthy, the canon admits such men to the clergy.”

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Council of Nicea, Canon 1, AD 325. This Link will open in a new page.

“Let a eunuch, if he be such by the injury of men, or his virilia were taken away in the persecution, or he was born such, and yet is worthy of episcopacy, be made a bishop.”

The Ecclesiastical Canons Of The Same Holy Apostles, 21. This Link will open in a new page.

It seems apparent from the above quotations, that the early church accepted both castrated eunuchs and uncastrated, born eunuchs, “he that was born such,” into the ministry of the Christian church. Same sex attracted eunuchs fall into the category of “he that was born such.”

of Focus On The Family and Love Won Out, admitted in a November, 2006, Larry King Live TV interview, that homosexual orientation, in his opinion, is usually not the result of individual choice.

Dr. Dobson, then pointed out that many Christian leaders disagree with him but he holds to his personal belief that homosexual orientation is usually not the result of individual choice.

If homosexual orientation is usually not the result of individual choice, Dr. Dobson’s viewpoint leaves room for the historically and scripturally accurate belief that same sex attracted eunuchs might be gay.

Comments by Dr. Dobson during a live interview on CNN’s Larry King program, November, 2006.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines spadones.

Does “on account of their temperament” include same sex attracted eunuchs who were temperamentally unsuited for heterosexual marriage because they were not sexually attracted to women?

Its interesting that an American Law Dictionary published 150 years ago, defined a class of people who were unsuited for heterosexual marriage because of their temperament, not because they were born with genital deformities. Sounds like gay men or lesbian women, doesn't it?

Easton's Bible Dictionary defines the term eunuch.

“Eunuch: literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated [physically castrated]... They were common also among the Greeks and Romans... Three classes of eunuchs are mentioned in Matthew 19:12.”

Christians in 1897 had the information that eunuchs were not necessarily mutilated (castrated) men. If a man could be a eunuch without being physically castrated, either he was asexual or transgendered or he falls into the category of same sex attracted eunuch.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia informs us that the existence of eunuchs as a class of people was common knowledge during the earthly ministry of Christ. In speaking of eunuchs, according to ISBE, Jesus intends His disciples to understand that:

“there are exceptional cases where the rule [about Adam and Eve style marriage] does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed.”

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, most definitely not a gay friendly publication, the three classes of eunuch, including “born eunuchs” were well known in the first century AD.

It should come as no surprise to students of history that same sex attracted eunuchs are included in the category of “born eunuch.”

According to Philo, commenting on Moses, Potiphar is a natural eunuch who happens to be married to a woman.

He possesses the organs of generation [has not been castrated] but apparently has no sexual interest in his wife. Potiphar purchased the handsome young Jewish slave Joseph and put him in charge of his entire household. Is it possible that Potiphar was included in the group we now recognize as same sex attracted eunuchs?

“The man [Potiphar] who bought this servant [Joseph] of whom we are speaking is said to have been a eunuch; very naturally, for the multitude which purchases the services of a man skilful in affairs of state is truly a eunuch, having in appearance, indeed, the organs of generation, but being deprived of all the power requisite for generating [no physical desire for a woman]... What, then, is the resemblance of eunuchs to the multitude? That the multitude too is unable to generate wisdom... (60) On which account (though it seems a most unnatural thing), a wife is represented as cohabiting with this eunuch [Potiphar].” - Philo, On Joseph, XII. 58-60.

1. We have described individuals who are born eunuchs.

2. This is recognized by Jewish Rabbis and Christian believers and even by Gnostic heretics.

   ---

   Gorilla Thinking

   ---

3. Everyone agrees that born eunuchs did not choose their condition.

4. Their condition was chosen for them by God.

5. These born eunuchs are physically intact and capable of procreation.

6. These born eunuchs have a natural sense of repulsion from marrying a woman.

1. We can conclude that born eunuchs are asexual, having no sexual interest in anyone.

   ---

   Man Thinking

   ---

2. We can conclude that born eunuchs are not gay or transgendered but are something undefinable (which refutes this argument, since the Jews did define born eunuchs).

3. We can conclude that some born eunuchs are transgendered individuals, a designation different than homosexual or heterosexual.

4. We can conclude that some born eunuchs are gay men and lesbian women.

5. We can conclude that born eunuchs fall into categories 3. and 4.

Readers are free to reach whatever conclusion they believe the facts warrant. In my opinion,

Gay Christian 101 - Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians.

There are four popular analogies which are used to validate Gay Relationships as blessed by God. Click here to examine these four popular analogies.

Here is a real-life example of a prominent gay partnership in scripture - the amazing true love story of Jonathan and David is the greatest human love story in the Bible.

Jesus identified the sin of Sodom and it was not homosexuality.

I am saying that the Holiness Code was aimed at Israel, in a specific place, the land of Israel, in a specific time period, while Israel was in the land, living under the Law. And what some Christians wrongly interpret as a universal prohibition of all gay relationships is, in reality, a prohibition of shrine prostitution in worship of the Canaanite fertility goddess.

What was a sodomite in the Bible? Was it a homosexual, as many conservative preachers insist or was a sodomite in the Bible always a shrine prostitute who worshiped the Canaanite fertility goddess?

Those who believe that the Centurion’s pais was only a servant and not the same sex partner of the gay Centurion, cite Greek lexicons to prove their case. Since most Biblical Greek lexicons do not mention beloved or same sex lover as possible meanings of pais. most nongay Christians insist same sex lover could not possibly be the meaning of pais.

You’ve read about Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs. Click Here To Return To Gay Christian 101.com Home Page.

In Gay Christian 101: Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians, I list 18 possible ways to interpret the Levitical Holiness Code, where it is alleged to deal with homosexuality.

Family Values in the Bible are so different from Traditional family values as taught by Focus On The Family that modern Christians would totally reject the "family values" practiced by Abraham and Sarah, Ruth and Boaz and many of the heroes of faith in the Old Testament.

Did you know that Christians are not required to keep the Old Testament Law to be right with God?