A few months ago, when the two cases about marriage equality were being presented to the Supreme Court, I changed my Facebook profile picture to this:
which prompted a friend to ask me why I supported gay marriage. I responded briefly that I didn't think it was a sin and that I thought it was a civil rights issue much as slavery, segregation and interracial marriage were in the past. At that time I also spent hours drafting a much longer explanation but never posted it anywhere because I didn't want to "stir the pot", but the issue is upon us again as the Supreme Court is getting ready to present it's decision, I am compelled to share my position. Below is what I wrote. Let the daggers fly!
**************************************************************************************************
A friend
asked me, in response to my recent declaration of supporting marriage equality,
“why I supported it?”
I thought –
wow, that’s a great question and worthy of some time to let the world know why
I support marriage equality, so this is my attempt at explaining my
position. I’ll also try to include the
counter-points which I’m sure will arise.
I realize though that this is probably a moot exercise. Many of my friends share my view and many
don’t; I doubt either is likely to change their position (although I would hope
that those with different opinions are willing to hear the other side with an
open heart).
I’ll start
by saying that I was raised in a conservative church (Seventh-Day Adventist)
and attended SDA schools from K all the way through high school graduation, so
I come from a background of homosexuality being a sin. However, I cannot recall a time ever actually
thinking this. I certainly had some
awareness of what it meant to be “gay” in high school, but it probably wasn’t
until college when I really grasped everything, including the controversy.
Here are
what seem to be the main arguments against homosexuality and therefore gay
marriage:
- The Bible says it’s a sin
- Homosexuality is unnatural
- It’s a slippery slope if we allow gay marriage
The Bible Says It's A Sin
Let’s start
with the Bible since that’s where so many people base their argument against
homosexuality. Having read the Bible
(all of it) I just don’t get using the Bible to justify being against
homosexuality.
There are a
few (just a few) verses that seem to mention homosexuality and are what many
Christians use to support their belief that it is a sin. Here is the problem I have with the Biblical
basis that homosexuality is a sin.
First, I have to point out that in spite of whatever translation of the
Bible you have, the word homosexual is not found in the original scriptures –
that was added in the 19th century.
Setting that fact aside for a moment, the real problem I have with
“homosexuality is a sin” position is that they are selectively choosing verses
as they see fit. The Bible, in
Leviticus, the same book which is so often quoted “Thou shalt
not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” and “If a man also
lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them.” (KJV), also contains detailed rules for animal sacrifices (chapter 17
and 19) and tells us not to wear clothes of mixed fabric (19: 20), instructs
men not to cut the hair at the side of their heads or to trim their beards
(19:27), not to have tattoos (19:28), that men having sex with women during
their period should be cut off from society (20:18) and various other
instructions which are no longer followed. We say that the others are out-dated
and no longer apply, but then how can one verse in the middle of all the others
still be applicable? I don’t see how
anyone can logically think it is ok to follow one verse and not all the others
in the same book.
Some
Christians like to argue that marriage is between one man and one woman; this is
often the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve argument”. Hmm, I guess all those
years of polygamy where erased from their Bibles. Many of the patriarchs from the Old Testament
had multiple wives; Solomon, said to be the wisest man of all, had 700 (1 Kings
11:3). Again, perhaps you want to argue
that this is out dated and no longer applies.
Then, I will raise the point again of how illogical it is to say that
one part of the Bible is still relevant and others aren’t.
And
in case anyone wants to accuse me of just looking at the Old Testament, which perhaps
you admit is outdated and so you want to look at the New Testament to condemn homosexuality,
let’s look at it. I Corinthians 6:9 is
one of the verses used to condemn homosexuality – “Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind,” (KJV). The NIV
tries to make it clearer “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men”. The other verse often quoted is I Timothy
1:10 - “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (KJV). Again the NIV, which by the way, was first
published in 1973, comes right out and says homosexuality – “for the sexually
immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and
perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine”. However, the problem with these verses in
both translations is the translation itself.
Remember, I started with the fact that the word homosexual was never in
the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek scriptures. The Greek words used in these verse were malakoi (effeminate) and arsenokoites
(abusers of themselves with mankind / defile themselves with mankind) were
never meant to refer to homosexuality.
There are no Greek writings in which these words refer to
homosexuality. Malakoi basically meant
someone who was morally weak and arsenokoites referred to shrine/temple
prostitution. Through the years and
various translations the original meanings have been changed and are now what
Christians around the world are hanging their hats on to support their
opposition. I’d rather go back to the
original meanings to form my opinions rather than to rely on the errors of men
over the ages.
However,
if you want to continue to think homosexuality is a sin, then I would submit
that all of us have committed this sin.
None of us are without fault and the Bible says that if we have broken
one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking it all – “For whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James
2:10 – KJV). That being said, I really
don’t think it is our place to judge what is a sin and what isn’t – that right
is left to God. I love John 8:7 because it recognizes that none of us are
without fault; “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her.”
The
over-riding message I get from the Bible is that we should be kind to each
other, that we should respect one another and help our fellow man. I choose to do this by speaking out against
what I see as an injustice and to support the right of individuals to marry who
they love.
So,
let’s move on to the homosexuality is unnatural argument…
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “natural” as
a: being in
accordance with or determined by nature
b: having
or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Facts:
·
homosexuality is observed in
numerous animal species
·
many plant species can self
reproduce (essentially then, have sex with themselves)
·
Scientific evidence now
supports that sexuality is inborn
Interestingly I found an article that argues
against homosexuality being natural stating, essentially, that it’s just an
exception to normal animal behavior and that “These observable exceptions to
normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.” Somehow, to me, this supports the very
argument they’re trying to counter. If
the animals cannot control themselves, doesn’t that mean that the behavior is a
natural occurrence? Seems to me like
it’s a numbers game to those who can’t accept homosexuality as natural; they
seem to think homosexuality only occurs in a small percentage of the animal
kingdom therefore it must be abnormal, which is defined as “deviating from the normal or average”.
Well, yes then homosexuality is abnormal because it is outside the average (or majority
may be a better way of thinking about this).
However, there are lots of abnormalities that occur in small percentages
(much smaller than homosexuality, by the way), such as conjoined twins, albinism,
extra or missing limbs, cleft lip or palate, Hutchinson-Gilford
Progeria syndrome (causing individuals to age rapidly), and here’s one for the
guys - diphallia (also known as Penile Duplication; apparently one in 5.5
million men in the US have two penises!).
These are just a few examples and at least the first 4 are documented in
both animals and people. Thankfully we don’t try to prevent people with any of these conditions
from marrying. Why then is homosexuality not viewed
as simply another randomly occurring difference that occurs in nature? I often tell my son how wonderful it is that
there are so many differences in people and how I think it would be boring if
we were all the same. I love, and am
continually amazed at the wonderful diversity of the animal world. I appreciate the beauty in all God’s
creatures.
Another
attempt at countering the “homosexuality is natural” position is that animals
have no logic or intellect to overcome these so called “unnatural” urges and
people do; if we accept homosexuality as natural then we also have to accept
other occurrences in nature “deviating from the normal or average”, such as filicide (killing of your
offspring) and cannibalism too. Well
guess what? People commit those acts
occasionally too. Now, don’t get me
wrong, I’m not justifying those behaviors (I’ll address that later); this
section is purely about what occurs in nature.
At its core the “occurring in nature” argument is
just that – does the event, behavior, trait, etc. occur exist in nature? Even if it is “abnormal”, if it exists then
it is natural, by pure definition. The
only logical conclusion for me then is that homosexuality is a natural
occurrence.
Coming back to the behaviors that occur in nature
(therefore are natural), but that we consider unacceptable in society –
filicide, cannibalism, pedophilia, rape, etc.
Yes, these are natural occurrences by pure definition so I must support
these too if I support gay marriage, right; I mean didn’t I just use that same
argument about hand-picking Bible verses?
The difference is that those behaviors have a victim; homosexuality between
two consenting persons (notice I didn’t say consenting adults, because I
include the teenage couple here too) has no victim. Two people who love and care about each other
and want to share their life together is a beautiful thing regardless of
whether it’s a man and a woman, two men or two women.
It's A Slippery Slope
Then
of course there are people who claim that we can’t allow gay marriage because
it’s a slippery slope, “Where do we draw the line? What if a man wants to marry
his dog?” I certainly think there are some situations where the slippery slope
argument may be valid, but I just don’t see it in this case. People seem to be grasping for anything here
and so they raise ridiculous concerns in an attempt to scare would-be
supporters into siding with them.
Besides, the slippery slope in this case is simple to avoid: define
marriage as being between two individuals who are not closely related. I don’t think anyone in favor of gay marriage
would complain.
The
main legal argument in support of gay marriage is that it is a civil right
which is being denied a segment of the population. This is the heart of the legal battle, and to
me this is the only issue that should be determined. The Bible does not dictate the laws - ever
heard of a little thing called separation of church and State? So no religious institution, or religious
beliefs, should be involved with determining the legality of gay marriage. And conversely I don’t think the law should
mandate that churches perform gay marriages.
Marriage in a church, or by a church official is the religious ceremony
(or holy matrimony), which is different than the legal or civil marriage
ceremony which can be performed by various authorized persons, in any location,
and which is what actually gives couples the legal benefits of marriage. Many people, of course, get married in a
church and therefore have both a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony
combined. Churches can determine the
requirements for religious ceremonies and legalizing gay marriage won’t change
that, it will simply give same-sex couples the right to have a civil ceremony
the same as everyone else.
I
can’t help but liken our current national divide on this issue to the division
our country faced over de-segregation in the 50s and 60s. Lots of people thought it was wrong for black
people to be allowed in the same places at white people, that it was wrong for
a black person to marry a white person, and that it was ok to deny them
employment based solely on the color of their skin. I am not so naïve as to think that there is
no longer racial discrimination, but certainly the majority of people agree
that treating people differently, and denying them rights, based on the color
of their skin is wrong. I believe the
same to be true regarding gay marriage; that one day (I hope soon) we, as a
whole country, will look back and realize it was wrong to deny any two people
the right to marry.
So
the bottom line is that even though I personally, after reading the Bible and
studying it’s content and original words, do not believe homosexuality is a sin
think that whether or not it is a sin has nothing to do with the legality of
gay marriage.
I
understand that religious upbringing and indoctrination is a hard thing to
break free of and have no problem accepting that some people are always going
to think homosexuality is wrong. That’s
fine, everyone is entitled to their belief, but religious views about what is
moral or immoral, a sin or not a sin, has nothing to do with civil rights.
I
suspect that many people opposed to gay marriage don’t truly have any valid
argument against it – they try one or more of the arguments discussed above,
but as I hope I’ve shown, they are all flawed arguments. Even in the face of logic, they still can’t
accept homosexuality or homosexual marriage.
My guess; they think it’s “icky”, but instead of just saying “you know,
I can’t really explain it, but I just don’t like it”, they try to hide behind
an illogical argument. It’s ok not to
like everyone’s choices, to have disagreements about what is right and wrong,
or even what is a sin and what isn’t, but that has nothing to do with civil
rights. I for one, will continue to advocate for civil rights.
For
those interested, below are various links to other articles on this issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/opinion/natures-case-for-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment