Some readers may remember this essay from it’s original posting on February 17, 2005. I apologize for the repeat, but this topic is one that doesn’t seem to go away and needs to be addressed with some regularity. The plight of homosexuals in this and other countries is one of the last great battles for true equality among people and is one that is consistently brought up by religious pundits as a smokescreen to deflect attention from more pressing issues in the world today. Homosexuality is not an agenda being pushed upon heterosexuals, it is a way of life for millions of people who only want the be treated as human beings. I hope you will find some words of wisdom here. I will return with a new essay in my next post.
If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.
What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.
The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.
In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.
The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.
That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.
The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.
As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.
Removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share thei
r life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 6th, 2006 at 6:46 am and is filed under Common Sense, Equality, Justice, LGBT, Life, Reform.
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.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:54 am
This was a salient topic then, and now. Unfortunately, nothing has improved regarding the situation of Gays in America baring the widespread desire by folks to go see Brokeback Mt. Incidentially, what’s the lesbian equvalent? What is their “Brokeback?”
With regards to this post, I have yet to find anyone who can give any reason why we shouldn’t let gay folks marry that doesn’t involve some biblical reference or the slanderous notion that it’s not “natural.”
Both are easy to refute in terms of defeating their arguments. I challenge any other blogger to come up with a reason why we should allow gay folks to marrry that doesn’t include either of those two issues, AND will sway others.
I’m not holding my breath. Incidentially, I should mention. My mother in laws are married – yes, that’s right, I have lesbian mother in laws. I also have a lesbian aunt, who is going to marry her partner this summer in MA. Oh, and I have a cousin who was married in Toronto a few years back to her lesbian partner. They are now the loving parents of a one year old girl. They are fantastic parents. And I love all my relatives. They deserve the right to marry whomever they want.
Oh, and don’t use the – if we let “them do it, then the next thing you know people will want to marry their pets, or a tree.” That’s crap and you know it.
Blog on All.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Recently in another blog I visit, a rightwing commenter wrote, “Christians come under serious criticism when they speak out for the sanctity of marriage”. I offered a rebuttal. But it is really unfortunate that they see the opposite of the truth. What are they afraid of?
February 7th, 2006 at 6:52 am
You left out the argument which I believe trumps all others. God is His Word specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
Not everyone believes the Bible is the Word of God, I know.
But for those of us who do, that matters a great deal. In both Old and New Testaments, He calls it an abomination, along with several other sins.
So we can’t condone it.
And for those who say, fine, just you don’t do it, let us do it –
the whole marriage thing forces us to accept and sanction it. And we can’t do that, any more than we can accept and sanction polygamy, bestiality, child “marriage,” or whatever. We can’t in good conscience assent to it.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Agree with you
February 7th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Human beings all deserve the same rights, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I do think your arguement however has been unfairly worded.
I think if you are to take comparisons of straight/gay life, then you shouldn’t take negative straight examples and compare them to positive gay. BOTH orientations have thier up and downs, a negative experience for children under either situation is exactly that.
For Monika… Gay marriage hurts no-one, what right do you have to deny them happiness?
Your bible is full of contradictions, and all meanings within are abused on a regular basis to control other peoples lives. How would you like your faith outlawed or discriminated against?
I accept peoples rights to act however they wish – As long as it hurts no other.
It may not have been proven that being gay is a choice, or genetics. It also hasnt been proven that having two loving fathers, or mothers, will hurt a child.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Didn’t the Bible also say, for those who believe it is the direct word of God (in fact, this would be a direct quote from Jesus, which makes it doubly so), “Let he who is without sin cast the frist stone?” Worry about the beam in your own eye, Monika.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
These folks could benefit from a quck review of the red words in the Gospels– much about love, forgiveness, nonjudgement, nothing about homos. Same deal with those 10 Commandments. Tells you where God has his priorities.
If only they could wrap their heads around that “least of our brethren” stuff.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Frankly, I’m rather weary of countering xtian “logic” by citing references in their own dogma that counters their bigotry and narrow-mindedness. Sure, while the Israelites were wondering through the desert, their priests decided what they could and could not do, perhaps, I don’t know, to keep them from dying out during those 40 years. No sex during a woman’s period, no eating at Red Lobster, no sassing your folks when you’re having a teenage hormonal flux…all punishable by death. As in, “God said it was okay to kill you.” Try that out in today’s courts. Maybe you’ll get lucky and be declared unfit to stand trial due to mental incapacity. As for the New Testament, sure Paul (according to approved translations) didn’t approve of same-sex relations in his letters to the churches in the epistles but Paul had a problem with nearly any human activity; “anal retentive” only begins to describe his uptightness and yet, thanks to the Council of Nicea (courtesy of your early Roman church state), there he is in all his glory, Jesus’ own “Karl Rove” with a good chunk of the New Testament devoted to his diatribes. If xtianity hadn’t undergone a reformation, modern xtians would be as equally whacked as they regard the Islamic fundies rioting over how hurt their feelings are over a caricature of their “prophet”. Hard to believe? Google on “Spanish Inquisition.” But, if we followed xtian doctrine (Old and New Testaments..you established the criteria!), women would not have the right to vote, the right to show their face unveiled, the right to work outside the home, the right to object to anything their husband said or did. In short, a woman would be patriarchally up a creek without a feminist paddle. So, instead of “skimming” through (likely ultraconservative) religious tracts for the 4-1-1 on what “God says” and making the lamest of snap judgments (which is more likely just brainwashing you’ve received throughout your upbringing), try firing a few more synapses and actually exercise some reason before peeking out from behind the curtain of the most-holy place and saying “Well God said so..” to justify good xtian bias and your own personal discomfort. Despite its cornpone quaintness, such assessments are second-rate and lazy, and it’s offensive to any reasonable, ethical person in a modern, democratic world. And the harsh “intellectual elitism” you may be sensing in my rather pointed response doesn’t begin to match the hollow high-mindedness regularly used by those thumping the “good book.” All I’m expecting is for you to change your mind. Yet, I’m expected to burn for all eternity for the my unrepentant nature. Nice!
February 10th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
(responses)
Windspike- Yes, I thought it needed another airing, so to speak.
And yes, there are no rational explanations for refusing equallity to homosexual people. That is why so many refer to biblical notions. Thanks for the comments.
Shea- I think they are afraid of their own hypocrisy, but can’t even see it. Sanctity of marriage? How many religious people are quick to file for divorce out of personal selfishness, or have affairs? Sanctity indeed!
Monika- Sorry Monika- but using religious justification was my number one argument, and I refuted it as a rational argument, in my opinion.
Do you absolutely believe that every word in the Bible is the literal word of God? Do you follow them all to a tee, including the massive contradictions within?
I doubt it, so quit playing “pick-n-choose God-speak.”
Also, did you forget that Mormons were quite fond of polygamy? They took the word to “go forth and multiply” quite literally for many years. They consider themselves to be Christians too you know…The same holds true for child marriage, practiced in less developed countries that claim Christianity as well.
Sorry dear, but you have no ground to stand on. But thanks for the comments.
V7- Thanks. Drop by again sometime.
Tsulea- I am just using the same arguments that those who condemn gays use…but yes, there are positives and negatives to both kinds of relationships. Not due to the nature of the relationships themselves though, but due to human nature. Thanks for dropping by.
Dave- Nicely said. Thanks for leaving a comment.
Dr. T- They are just proving that they are not spiritual religoius types, but religious in name only. It is a sham, but they are too blind by their narrow view to see it for what it is. Thanks for dropping by.
Rick- Comments on both sides…thanks for the dual input.
Yes, it does almost seem pointless to battle verse with verse, but there is so much material to work with, and it’s always nice to hear them sputter and spin when you refute the “word of God” with other “words of God.”
February 15th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Yes, I know you did mention religion, but your statement was truncated. You seem to think God says that you’re not supposed to have sex unless you’re procreating. There’s nothing in the Bible that says that. Reference the entire section of the Bible called Song of Solomon, for one long string of examples. If we were only supposed to have sex to procreate, we’d be forbidden to do it after menopause; or if one of the couple is or infertile; or during infertile times of women’s cycles; none which is forbidden in the Bible.
I believe the Bible in its original languages is the actual word of God, yes. I also think the English translation is an extremely faithful one. I do not find any contradiction in Scripture. I try to follow it, yes. If I sin, I repent. I don’t live in sin.
Why would you say, “I doubt it, so quit playing “pick-n-choose God-speak.”” You don’t know me.
I know that Mormons are/were polygamous. So were some patriarchs. That doesn’t make it right. I know they consider themselves Christians. That’s not my fault, is it?
My friend, I have a rock to stand on.
Anyway, my purpose in commenting was to help others to understand where a lot of evangelicals are coming from. I was raised an atheist and didn’t get saved until I was 21. I can see pretty clearly from both sides of the pond.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:12 am
(response)
Monika-Actually, Monika, I’m saying that many of the people who use the religious argument against homosexuality like to use the “procreation” argument, and many do decry sex in general as not something to be done except under certain circumstances.
My argument here is not about religion, in specific. I won’t try to dissuade you in your belief, whether or not I agree with your assumptions.
The text in the Bible has been altered many, many times over the ages. And to say you see no contradictions leaves me to wonder how you could have read all the text and not see any…Even many hard core religious people see the inconsistencies, but they refuse to try to reconcile them. Whatever works for you I guess.
And you are right…I don’t know you, but I find it hard to believe that you are capable of following each and every dictum laid out in the Bible. If you do, you are indeed a remarkable person, though not necessarily consistent.
Your rock is as solid as you want it to be. I won’t try to crumble it from under you.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:15 am
And the answer is…What is God only knows?
February 24th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Religion shouldn’t even be an issue here.
In a secular state, people don’t need the approval of any religious body to marry. Every day couples get married at the courthouse without religious sanction or blessing of any sort.
Conversly without state sanction (a marriage license) all the religious ceremonies in the world can’t make a couple legally married in this country.
Gays should have the same right to civil marriage as straight people do.
A church may then sanctify these marriages or not as it chooses.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
(response)
Tyo- That’s just what I’m saying. Thanks for dropping in.