An Experimental Life

(For a partial list of references, go to the bottom of the page.)

Just because I'm a straight man doesn't mean I'm not concerned about equal rights for gays, and I am sick of the Religious Right's campaign of lies (Apparently they haven't read the commandment about bearing false witness.) to try to keep gays second-class citizens.

I actually corresponded with one bigot who compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers, saying that since we don't tolerate rapists and murderers even though there may be a "violence gene," that we shouldn't tolerate gays whether they are born gay or not. She believed that the Bible supported her views.

This is more extreme than most of these hate-mongers are willing to go, but is merely a different degree of the bigotry endemic to the Religious Right. And no, although I'm not a Christian, I'm not "anti-Christian" in any sense--Although I apparently know more about their religion than most of the Religious Right seem to.

Interestingly enough, some of the arguments given below were the same ones that were (and sometimes still are) given by opponents of interracial marriage. Also interestingly enough, the Religious Right (although they were not called that at the time) were among the loudest voices protesting interracial marriage, too.

I could have written more on this topic (much, much more), but in the interest of brevity, I'll just briefly hit on some of the main points, and touch on how the campaign against gay marriage has nothing to do with Christ's teachings.

Lets start debunking the lies.

I. The scriptural basis for the fight against gay marriage is a lie.

Their supposed scriptural basis for opposing gay marriage does not, in fact, exist. Yes, there are prohibitions against homosexuality for believers, but even Paul states that the only action that should be taken against any homosexual is that, if they are a member of the church, that they should be thrown out. He clearly states that Christians have no business judging anyone outside the church.

And there is no commandment anywhere in there that "thou shalt impose thy interpretation of My will for My followers upon non-believers." Even Paul never suggested that believers should try to force non-believers into following Christian teachings.

This argument is also a clear case of cherry-picking scripture. In the same passage in which Paul talks about homosexuality, he says that women should keep their hair long, cover their heads when praying, and should not be allowed to teach in church nor have any authority over a man. In fact, women are not even to speak in church unless they are prophesying. If a woman has a question, she should keep silent and ask her husband to explain when she gets home.

This is not merely a suggestion, either. Paul states that anyone--even an angel--who teaches anything different shall be eternally condemned. Note that this also comes shortly after the bit about not judging those outside the church.

So which is it, Religious Right? If homosexuals are biblically ordered to be second-class citizens, then so are women. Maybe it's time to reconsider whether you are followers of Paul or of Jesus.

As for the Old Testament argument, it's another case of cherry-picking to justify bigotry. Read the whole thing. I have. For one thing, it was written as law for the ancient Hebrews. For another, if you want to live by it completely, you'll be executing a lot of your family, friends, and neighbors--possibly even being stoned yourself.

II. The "traditional marriage" argument is a lie.

The Religious Right claims that "traditional marriage" has always been between one man and one woman.

Wrong. And even if they were right, we've gotten rid of a lot of traditions, like slavery. I suppose we should bring back slavery because it is "traditional?" It is a much longer-running tradition than what they call traditional marriage. Various cultures around the world have had (and still have) long-running marriage traditions of polygamy, polyandry, and other forms of marriage.

Many cultures around the world have allowed for alternate forms of marriage, including same-sex marriage and various forms of group marriage. Even in the Old Testament, many of the patriarchs had more than one wife, and the only prohibition against such thing is directed toward kings, of whom it is said they should not have too many wives on the grounds that this would be a distraction.

What the Religious Right claims as traditional marriage is a recent development. The clergy didn't even get involved in weddings until pretty late in the game, in order to legitimize financially and politically motivated unions. Marriages were financial and political arrangements in which the bride-to-be had no say. Even in the United States, marriage "for love" was not the norm until the nineteenth century. Marriages among the poor were generally "common law" in nature, while those among the upper classes were generally for financial reasons.

Dubya, has publically proclaimed that what the RR calls traditional marriage is "based on the Bible," which is most certainly not the case--Marriage is older than the Bible. And besides, throughout most of the Bible women are the property of their fathers until they are sold to a husband, and men are allowed multiple wives and concubines. Wives are to submit totally to their husbands without question or hesitation. If a man's brother dies and leaves a widow, the surviving brother is required to take her as a wife and have children with her. Hey, I love my sister-in-law, but not quite in that way, you know?

Oh, yes... According to traditional (as in Biblical) Judeo-Christian marriage practices, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for a girl in her early teens to marry her middle-aged uncle.

III. The "destruction of the sanctity of marriage" argument is a lie.

First off, that argument doesn't make sense to anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with logic. That's like saying that allowing Protestants to practice their religion destroys the sanctity of Catholicism. Or that letting your neighbor eat junk food threatens your family's health. If allowing same-sex marriage threatens your own marriage, your marriage has some serious problems, my friend.

Interestingly enough, those U.S. states that are most against same-sex marriage and scream loudest about the sanctity of marriage are, by and large, those states with the highest divorce rates.

IV. The "weakening of culture and of the family" argument is a lie.

The Religious Right has traditionally been against any science that conflicts with their preconceived notions, including, for a time, the heliocentric model of the solar system. (According to the Bible, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Of course, according to the Bible, rabbits are cud-chewing animals.)

In this case they, predictably, choose to ignore the science once again. According to the American Anthropological Association (you know--the people who actually study cultures for a living), allowing for alternative forms of marriage has been found to be a stabilizing influence in every culture in which they are found.

V. The "homosexuality isn't natural" argument is a lie.

Homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed throughout the animal kingdom. The usual RR argument in response to this datum is, "So you're saying we're no better than animals!" No, I'm refuting the erroneous statement that homosexuality is not natural.

VI. "If everyone were gay, the human race would die out."

Yes, but not everyone is. If we apply the RR's "logic" to society at large, everyone should be required to have sex and make babies, and it is immoral to be sterile or to choose not to reproduce--just as, according to them, it is immoral to be gay. After all, if everyone were sterile or chose to not have children, the human race would die out.

VII. "The gays have an agenda."

This one is true. The gay agenda is equality--Nothing more, and nothing less. And "separate but equal," is not true equality now any more than it was during the black civil rights movement.

As for those groups who shout these lies so loudly, well... They're in violation of their own scriptures. They're just publicans standing out on the street corners trying to get attention and prove how "holy" they are. They're not bringing anyone into their religion except other homophobic nutcases. They preach a message of hatred and intolerance, as opposed to Jesus's message of love, tolerance, and peace, and are much of why Christianity has a bad name in these parts.

Want to see what the experts have to say?

The Religious Right is lying to you about gay marriage

Reply