The following list, and my answers, are not comprehensive. Gay marriage is a contentious, divisive issue for some. For others, it is a matter of equal rights, and equal treatment under the law. Since the Bible is often used to rail against the government extending equal rights to the gay community, I’ll start this out with a Biblical Verse:
Romans 13 1:2
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (The Holy Bible)
Biblical Definition of Marriage
There are a few minor problems with using any sort of Biblical argument to advocate against gay marriage.
First, the United States isn’t now, nor has it ever been, a “Christian” nation. In spite of the fact that the U.S. Constitution, a document much more recent than the bronze age edicts filling the Bible, states—quite implicitly, I might add—that this is the case in the First Amendment “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (The Constitution of the United States) we have additional proof that this is the case in Article XI of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli which reads, in part, “…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…” (Treaty of Tripoli)
Second, the Biblical definition of marriage is nebulous at bes, degrading and dangerous at worse, and allows for plural marriage (a.k.a. polygamy), forced marriages, honor killing of women, incest and justification of rape.
Next, consider that there is no standard version of the Bible. Catholics have their version. Protestants have their versions. The Orthodox Churches have theirs. And every once in a while, a new “Authoritative Translation” of the Bible pops up to confuse things further.
Finally, using the Bible as an argument against gay marriage demonstrates true religious myopia. Christianity is only one umbrella religion. If we’re going to use religion as a valid argument against gay marriage, then we must take equal consideration for those faiths that are neutral and those in favor of the subject.
Procreation
This recent argument, that marriage is primarily about procreation, is as inaccurate as it is absurd.
Historically, marriage has been about securing familial alliance, easing national tension, and acquisition of wealth and security. Procreation was incidental, and more often was the product of an unequal balance of power between the sexes. Consequently, the majority of historical marriages were arranged with little consideration or input from the parties being forced into the commitment, a practice still common around the world.
But, let’s accept for a moment that this argument is true, that marriage really is about procreation, and apply that standard to modern heterosexual marriages in the U.S. A double standard is immediately established because:
- People beyond child bearing years are still allowed to marry;
- Infertile couples are still allowed to marry; and
- People who choose not to have children, even if they are able to, are still allowed to marry
Now, every once in a while, as a corollary to this argument, it has been expressed that “Same-sex couples, who cannot procreate, do not promote the state’s interests in responsible procreation (regardless of whether they harm it).” (Adams)
The Supreme Court of the United States, in a roundabout way, addressed this issue in the verdict of Lawrence v. Texas (Lawrence V. Texas) which, while abolishing anti-sodomy laws, also has the effect of removing the State from the “bedroom” of consenting adults. Since procreation occurs in the “bedroom” (sometimes, in the back of a “car”), the State’s voyeuristic interest in procreation is made moot.
It’s Unnatural
Marriage, in general, is unnatural by virtue of the fact that it is man-made. Additionally, I can actually count the number of primate species that engage in monogamous relationships as a societal standard, rather than an incidental occurrence, on one finger.
What a person is really saying here is that they find gay sex icky. That’s all well and good, because I find heterosexual sex pretty disturbing myself. That said, what a straight person does in “bedroom” (or the back of the “car) with other straight people isn’t really my concern. Icky or not.
It’s Tradition
Traditions change. A century ago, it was tradition to write letters by hand, mail them off, and wait for replies. Six years ago, it was tradition that the President of the United States was the job of a Caucasian man.
New Traditions are created every day, from emailing a friend for the first time, to protesting environmentally damaging public works projects.
It’s also tradition that every 2 years, we vote for our representative in the House, every 4 years we fote for a President, and every 6 years we vote for a Senator. This tradition, by the way, isn’t nearly as old as celebrating Christmas but, interestingly enough, it’s older than the tradition of buying diamond engagement rings. Go figure.
Think of the Children!
Oh, the various ways this argument rears its hydra head, from forcing schools to teach homosexuality to the seminal (snicker) work, “Boys Beware”.
Kids these days have access to more information than at any other time in human history. From cell phones to computers, television to libraries, the advertisements in shop windows to billboards in their schools, children are inunadated with it.
Even if the national curriculum were completely sanitized of any sexual reference, implication of sexual relationships would still be all around, in the form of wedding rings on teacher’s fingers, to listening to Mom and Dad go at it in the “bedroom” (or “car”).
Let’s take sex out of the equation all together here and discuss, for a moment, what this is really about: property rights, homogeny, and parental dreams.
Property Rights: think about how children are referred to by their parents, i.e. “My children…”, “My kids…” etc. Children are still seen, either explicitly or collaterally, as the property of their parents, rather than as separate beings. This view then entitles a parent to attempt to control what a child can and cannot learn. Because a parent may be disturbed by an idea, it is expected that the child will, as an extension of the parent, be disturbed by it as well.
Homogeny: for all of our society’s high notion that we, as a people, encourage excellence, outstandingness, or (shudder!) difference, we in fact, do not. All of those qualities encourage thought, and since children are seen as the property of their parents, thoughtfulness is dangerous to the authority of the parent and, indeed, of anyone in a position of authority. Instead, we tell children to “fit-in”, even when the child is “fitting-in” with a subversive croup or counter culture. At our roots, humans are a tribal society, and any child that stands separate from the tribe is deemed other very quickly. Homogeny is the parent’s way of making sure their property, children, remain safe to fulfill…
Parental dreams: Mom couldn’t be a beauty queen, so she puts her daughter in a pageant; Dad couldn’t play football professionally, so he encourages his son to get on the team. Every parent has dreams of what their children may someday become. Because they want to maintain homogeny for their property, they dream their children will be like them: Son will be a virile pussy pounder; Daughter will be a demure, blushing, virgin bride.
Homosexuality, in general, breaks all these of these establishments. By engaging in flagrante delicto with members of the same sex, a child is asserting personhood rather than respecting parental property rights, self-expression rather than homogeny, and destroys their parent’s dreams by chasing their own, unique destiny rather than the one planned for them.
These are the five main arguments I’ve encountered that protest the establishment of equal rights for the GLBTQI(etc.) community. For those who rail against gay marriage, and those who fight for it, I leave with the words of George Washington:
While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Benedict Arnold, Sep. 14, 1775
Works Cited
The Holy Bible. New International Version.
Adams, Brook. "Utah’s gay marriage argument touches on procreation." The Salt Lake Tribune 12 October 2013. Newspaper.
Lawrence V. Texas. No. (02-102) 539 U.S. 558. The Supreme Court. 2003. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html>.
"The Constitution of the United States." Amendment 1, 1787
"Treaty of Tripoli." Article XI, 1796
No comments:
Post a Comment