This article is a response to the recent, and to my mind, troubling results of the popular vote in many states across the US. The idea is to respond to some of the most commonly used arguments against same-sex marriage.
1.Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and a sin. Therefore they must live with the consequences. I have also seen comparisons of the ‘sin’ of homosexuals to that of murderers and drink drivers whom we don’t allow to ‘reoffend’. As far as I am aware, at no point does someone sit down and choose their sexuality. Not once did I sit down and decide to be straight, decide who I would develop feelings for, and I don’t believe anyone else does either. Love and attraction are not things you can control, they come from deep within, they are unique to each individual. In the animal kingdon, perhaps, mating is based on the person you think will offer your offspring the best chance of survival, but we like to think that we have progressed beyond that point. As for comparing homosexuality to murder or accidents through drink driving, I have met, interacted with, befriended, many people who are homosexual or bisexual, and not once have I felt that my personal safety was in danger as a result of their sexuality. That’s the difference – murderers, drink drivers, rapists, molesters – they actually hurt people by their actions, homosexuals don’t. If you insist on comparing it to a sin it’s closer to blasphemy – noone actually gets hurt when you do it, it just makes some people upset and apparently upsets God.
2. The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is indeed a sin under Old Testament law, which was largely abandoned in the New Testament because people decided it was outdated and no longer appropriate for their society. However they choose to keep to the 10 Commandments, which are, incidentally, in the Old Testament – picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they follow. Also, the word translated as ‘detestable’ or ‘an abomination’ is a mis-translation from the Aramaic – it actually means ‘frowned upon’ – far less severe and much more tolerant, which was my understanding of what modern Christianity was about – love they neighbour and all that… Also, if you choose to keep to Old Testament Law then you should also remember to stone people publicly for planting 2 different crops in the same field, burn them for wearing garments of a mixed fabric, and of course, approve of slavery as it is quite clearly and categorically sanctioned in the Bible.
3. The argument against homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament, which the other Levitican Laws are not. The rephrasing in the New Testament of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ when referring to heterosexual and homosexual loveis again, open to debate. In the original this word can mean ‘common’ and ‘uncommon’. The people who translated the Bible from Aramaic put their own slant on words, which was then done again my those who translated it into the vernacular. Different versions of the Bible use different words in the same verses, meaning if you are going to focus on specific words and phrases you should be aware that you are often reading a mis-translation. (On that point, the word translated as ‘virgin’, simply means ‘young girl’ – it was the Latin version that first used virgin…) Again, ‘perversion’ where it is used is being understood with a 21st Century mind – the true meaning of the word ‘perversion’ is to reverse the trend or direction of something – we are the ones who have added the ‘dirty’ aspect to it in our understanding – it’s not there in the original meaning of the word.
4. We can’t allow gay couples to adopt, it will destroy the family unit and increase the number of children who grow up to be gay. Allowing and accepting gay marriage would increase the rate of adoption and the availability of loving homes and families for children who otherwise would not have that as an option. It does not destroy the family unit, simply increases the number of family units available. The traditional argument against this, if a gay couple adopt a child it will grow up to be gay, (which people don’t like the idea of, hence it being one of their objections) is a ridiculous idea. If that were the case then heterosexual couples would only ever raise heterosexual children, and given that there are gay people in the world and have been since long before gay marriage was allowed, the argument just doesn’t work.
5. Marriage is a Christian institution, allowing homosexuals to marry goes again Christian teaching. Marriage is not a Christian institution. It was around long before Christianity was ever thought of, long before Judaism, out of which Christianity grew, was ever thought of. The Ancient Greeks married one another, the Egyptians, the Native Americans, the Angles, the Jutes, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Vikings – all of these groups predate Christianity and all of them had marriage ceremonies dating back to before Christianity existed. If you need more modern examples, Jews have marriage ceremonies as do Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists and every other group in society. Many people choose to have their union blessed by their religion to increase its meaning and significance to them, but that does not make it the exclusive right of that religion to get married. Unless you are planning on saying that only Christian marriages are legal then once again this argument does not stand up. The reason Christ compared his relationship to the Church (though at that time it would have been a Temple or a Synagogue, since he was Jewish himself) to a marriage was for the very fact that it was an ancient institution that predated his existence and therefore something that he knew people would be able to associate with.
6. Homosexual men are allowed to marry one woman, in just the same way heterosexual men are, therefore they do not have fewer rights at all, they have exactly the same rights. In a purely literal sense, yes, homosexual men, for instance, do have the same rights as heterosexual men in that they are each entitled to marry one woman. However, this completely contradicts the argument about marriage being based around love – heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they love, homosexuals don’t. How would people feel if they were told that they were not allowed to marry because they are different heights? It is as ridiculous and as uncontrollable as sexuality, and takes away their right to marry someone they love, yet they would still have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Would people be satisfied?
7. There is no evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, therefore it must be unnatural and a choice of the individuals. There is scientific debate over whether or not homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. Some scientists will argue that it does, some will argue that it doesn’t. As I am not a biologist, and this one is not really a matter of opinion but more a case of research, I will defer to those more knowledgeable on the subject, and suggest that people fully read around the topic, looking at both sides of the debate, not just that with which they agree.
8. People would not argue this point with other religions, yet they think it is acceptable to argue with Christians. I would have no issue discussing this with someone approaching it from a Muslim or other standpoint, but since I used to be a relatively devout Christian I have more background knowledge of the teachings and specifics of the Bible than I would of the Qu’ran for instance. My argument is not with Christianity, but more the selective use of it to influence secular law, and the selective following of its teachings – that was what initially made me question and indeed later abandon my faith in the first place – people preach love and tolerance, but practice judgement and intolerance, and the hypocrisy did not fit with how I wanted to live my life.
9. Allowing same-sex marriage would change the foundation of marriage and the family unit, and therefore shake the stability of society. No-one is suggesting that the foundation of marriage be changed. No-one is suggesting that ‘traditional’ marriage be outlawed in favour of same-sex marriage. It does not attack the family unit, simply broaden the concept of it. Heterosexual marriages have, for millenia, produced those who would seek to damage society in various ways. There is no evidence that allowing same-sex marriages would increase the damage being done to society. In the UK, where same-sex marriages have been legal for some time, there has been no sudden increase in crime or divorce, there was not a mass defection to ‘the other side’ by those who had previously been in heterosexual marriages but now thought they fancied this other option better. It simply opened up the option for people to create more family units, for people to love one another and raise a loving family – children raised by a homosexual couple are not more likely to offend or lack the concept of right and wrong. If anything it increases tolerance and removes prejudice which has to be a good thing. As one of my friends put it, the fewer children we find hanging on the end of a rope or slicing into their arms because they have been made to believe they are evil for something they can’t control, the better.
10. It is the commitment before God that you will stay together for life that makes marriage important. I agree that marriage should be a commitment, it should not be undertaken lightly, and it should be for life, however, I think the personalities of the individuals have more bearing on this than whether or not the ceremony is performed in a church or other religious institution. Unfortunately I know many people who’s parents divorced, despite swearing before God that they would stay together for life. Equally, my uncle had a civil marriage, yet he and his wife worked through their issues and have stayed together because they believe marriage should be forever – there was no religious aspect to their union, but they believe marriage is important and you should work through issues together. Religion didn’t come into it, yet their family unit stayed together, because they had made a commitment to each other, which to them was just as important as any couple who make a commitment to God. Would their sense of love and commitment be any different if they were the same gender? I don’t believe so.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
This entry was posted on November 7, 2009 at 11:28 am and is filed under Random, Social Commentary with tags bible, civil rights, equality, fairness, gay marriage, homophobia, homosexuality, justice, love, marriage, religion, tolerance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Why democracy sometimes gets it wrong…
This article is a response to the recent, and to my mind, troubling results of the popular vote in many states across the US. The idea is to respond to some of the most commonly used arguments against same-sex marriage.
1.Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and a sin. Therefore they must live with the consequences. I have also seen comparisons of the ‘sin’ of homosexuals to that of murderers and drink drivers whom we don’t allow to ‘reoffend’. As far as I am aware, at no point does someone sit down and choose their sexuality. Not once did I sit down and decide to be straight, decide who I would develop feelings for, and I don’t believe anyone else does either. Love and attraction are not things you can control, they come from deep within, they are unique to each individual. In the animal kingdon, perhaps, mating is based on the person you think will offer your offspring the best chance of survival, but we like to think that we have progressed beyond that point. As for comparing homosexuality to murder or accidents through drink driving, I have met, interacted with, befriended, many people who are homosexual or bisexual, and not once have I felt that my personal safety was in danger as a result of their sexuality. That’s the difference – murderers, drink drivers, rapists, molesters – they actually hurt people by their actions, homosexuals don’t. If you insist on comparing it to a sin it’s closer to blasphemy – noone actually gets hurt when you do it, it just makes some people upset and apparently upsets God.
2. The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is indeed a sin under Old Testament law, which was largely abandoned in the New Testament because people decided it was outdated and no longer appropriate for their society. However they choose to keep to the 10 Commandments, which are, incidentally, in the Old Testament – picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they follow. Also, the word translated as ‘detestable’ or ‘an abomination’ is a mis-translation from the Aramaic – it actually means ‘frowned upon’ – far less severe and much more tolerant, which was my understanding of what modern Christianity was about – love they neighbour and all that… Also, if you choose to keep to Old Testament Law then you should also remember to stone people publicly for planting 2 different crops in the same field, burn them for wearing garments of a mixed fabric, and of course, approve of slavery as it is quite clearly and categorically sanctioned in the Bible.
3. The argument against homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament, which the other Levitican Laws are not. The rephrasing in the New Testament of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ when referring to heterosexual and homosexual loveis again, open to debate. In the original this word can mean ‘common’ and ‘uncommon’. The people who translated the Bible from Aramaic put their own slant on words, which was then done again my those who translated it into the vernacular. Different versions of the Bible use different words in the same verses, meaning if you are going to focus on specific words and phrases you should be aware that you are often reading a mis-translation. (On that point, the word translated as ‘virgin’, simply means ‘young girl’ – it was the Latin version that first used virgin…) Again, ‘perversion’ where it is used is being understood with a 21st Century mind – the true meaning of the word ‘perversion’ is to reverse the trend or direction of something – we are the ones who have added the ‘dirty’ aspect to it in our understanding – it’s not there in the original meaning of the word.
4. We can’t allow gay couples to adopt, it will destroy the family unit and increase the number of children who grow up to be gay. Allowing and accepting gay marriage would increase the rate of adoption and the availability of loving homes and families for children who otherwise would not have that as an option. It does not destroy the family unit, simply increases the number of family units available. The traditional argument against this, if a gay couple adopt a child it will grow up to be gay, (which people don’t like the idea of, hence it being one of their objections) is a ridiculous idea. If that were the case then heterosexual couples would only ever raise heterosexual children, and given that there are gay people in the world and have been since long before gay marriage was allowed, the argument just doesn’t work.
5. Marriage is a Christian institution, allowing homosexuals to marry goes again Christian teaching. Marriage is not a Christian institution. It was around long before Christianity was ever thought of, long before Judaism, out of which Christianity grew, was ever thought of. The Ancient Greeks married one another, the Egyptians, the Native Americans, the Angles, the Jutes, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Vikings – all of these groups predate Christianity and all of them had marriage ceremonies dating back to before Christianity existed. If you need more modern examples, Jews have marriage ceremonies as do Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists and every other group in society. Many people choose to have their union blessed by their religion to increase its meaning and significance to them, but that does not make it the exclusive right of that religion to get married. Unless you are planning on saying that only Christian marriages are legal then once again this argument does not stand up. The reason Christ compared his relationship to the Church (though at that time it would have been a Temple or a Synagogue, since he was Jewish himself) to a marriage was for the very fact that it was an ancient institution that predated his existence and therefore something that he knew people would be able to associate with.
6. Homosexual men are allowed to marry one woman, in just the same way heterosexual men are, therefore they do not have fewer rights at all, they have exactly the same rights. In a purely literal sense, yes, homosexual men, for instance, do have the same rights as heterosexual men in that they are each entitled to marry one woman. However, this completely contradicts the argument about marriage being based around love – heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they love, homosexuals don’t. How would people feel if they were told that they were not allowed to marry because they are different heights? It is as ridiculous and as uncontrollable as sexuality, and takes away their right to marry someone they love, yet they would still have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Would people be satisfied?
7. There is no evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, therefore it must be unnatural and a choice of the individuals. There is scientific debate over whether or not homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. Some scientists will argue that it does, some will argue that it doesn’t. As I am not a biologist, and this one is not really a matter of opinion but more a case of research, I will defer to those more knowledgeable on the subject, and suggest that people fully read around the topic, looking at both sides of the debate, not just that with which they agree.
8. People would not argue this point with other religions, yet they think it is acceptable to argue with Christians. I would have no issue discussing this with someone approaching it from a Muslim or other standpoint, but since I used to be a relatively devout Christian I have more background knowledge of the teachings and specifics of the Bible than I would of the Qu’ran for instance. My argument is not with Christianity, but more the selective use of it to influence secular law, and the selective following of its teachings – that was what initially made me question and indeed later abandon my faith in the first place – people preach love and tolerance, but practice judgement and intolerance, and the hypocrisy did not fit with how I wanted to live my life.
9. Allowing same-sex marriage would change the foundation of marriage and the family unit, and therefore shake the stability of society. No-one is suggesting that the foundation of marriage be changed. No-one is suggesting that ‘traditional’ marriage be outlawed in favour of same-sex marriage. It does not attack the family unit, simply broaden the concept of it. Heterosexual marriages have, for millenia, produced those who would seek to damage society in various ways. There is no evidence that allowing same-sex marriages would increase the damage being done to society. In the UK, where same-sex marriages have been legal for some time, there has been no sudden increase in crime or divorce, there was not a mass defection to ‘the other side’ by those who had previously been in heterosexual marriages but now thought they fancied this other option better. It simply opened up the option for people to create more family units, for people to love one another and raise a loving family – children raised by a homosexual couple are not more likely to offend or lack the concept of right and wrong. If anything it increases tolerance and removes prejudice which has to be a good thing. As one of my friends put it, the fewer children we find hanging on the end of a rope or slicing into their arms because they have been made to believe they are evil for something they can’t control, the better.
10. It is the commitment before God that you will stay together for life that makes marriage important. I agree that marriage should be a commitment, it should not be undertaken lightly, and it should be for life, however, I think the personalities of the individuals have more bearing on this than whether or not the ceremony is performed in a church or other religious institution. Unfortunately I know many people who’s parents divorced, despite swearing before God that they would stay together for life. Equally, my uncle had a civil marriage, yet he and his wife worked through their issues and have stayed together because they believe marriage should be forever – there was no religious aspect to their union, but they believe marriage is important and you should work through issues together. Religion didn’t come into it, yet their family unit stayed together, because they had made a commitment to each other, which to them was just as important as any couple who make a commitment to God. Would their sense of love and commitment be any different if they were the same gender? I don’t believe so.
Like this:
This entry was posted on November 7, 2009 at 11:28 am and is filed under Random, Social Commentary with tags bible, civil rights, equality, fairness, gay marriage, homophobia, homosexuality, justice, love, marriage, religion, tolerance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.