“You shall not lie with a
male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (The Catholic Bible, Leviticus 18.22). As a young catholic boy going
through my weekly two hour long sessions in hopes of one day being confirmed
and fully recognized as an adult within the church, I must say I have no
recollection of ever focusing on this passage within the Old Testament during
my religious classes. However, in today’s society that verse is used over and
over again amongst conservatives and religious individuals everywhere. For
whatever reason they do not focus on Deuteronomy, or other “off the wall” verses
about sexual conduct within Leviticus. It is almost always Leviticus 18:22.
Throughout the Old Testament many verses seemingly condone rape, murder, and
polygamy. I can remember being slightly fascinated by the Old Testament and all
of its gory glory while reading it during unexciting liturgies about that New
Testament “goodie-two-shoes” Jesus.
After becoming a “confirmed” catholic I moved on to high school, which
was a different form of education that could seemingly thwart any person’s
religious ideals. I started to develop my own opinions based
upon science and my own personal interactions with others. I later joined the United States Air Force
which truly helped shape me into the person I am today, but again based largely
upon my own personal insight. Somewhere during that time though, something changed.
I became agnostic. For me The Bible couldn’t be real, because logically it
didn’t make sense. Following my same logic there had to be some sort of
“ultimate creator” though because in order for something to exist something
else had to exist to create it. Regardless, I could no longer be another
“sheep” in the flock. I could not believe that homosexuals were evil or hold
views of homosexuals as substandard citizens that are refused the same rights
as everyone else. There are many arguments against homosexual marriage, some of
which are valid in my opinion, and some of which are not. While the validity of
these claims is centered on people’s beliefs and morals, I want to ask you, the
reader to open your mind and “Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be
quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath” (James 1.19).
Recently, I read a profound online article by Peter
Sprigg entitled “Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal”. Within this article Sprigg makes many valid
points in regards to the fallout related to homosexual marriage. In my opinion, the most valid argument he
makes is the ability for same sex married couples to collect government benefits.
Under current laws spouses are eligible to collect social security survivor
benefits. He explains “(t)he fact that Social Security survivors benefits were
intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from
a former employer has not kept homosexuals from demanding the benefit.” Next, he explains the fact that taxpayers
would be forced to pay for homosexual government employee’s health insurance
along with their dependents. In regards to these benefits he states “Never
mind that "dependents" were, when the tax code was developed, assumed
to be children and stay-at-home mothers.” Now I challenge you the reader to
research the United States of America Tax Code. If you do, you will find it is
the one of the most complex, and in many cases unfair documents ever created in
American history. Even former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman admitted that
the 14,000 page tax code is so complex he uses someone to help him prepare his
taxes. The point is that Sprigg’s issue in this argument is not with homosexual
marriage. His issue is with our government and its laws on benefits to married
couples. The fact that he brings up these laws were put in place to help stay
at home moms is definitely an excellent observation. In many married families
today regardless of sexual preference both spouses are working and able to
receive these benefits. America has always (for whatever reason) given people
incentives to be married. I feel this should not be the case. As a government employee my family uses the
health insurance provided to us by the military. The fact that I am in a heterosexual
marriage is irrelevant.
Another valid issue
that Sprigg brings to light is the idea that freedom of conscience and
religious liberty would be threatened.
In this argument he explains that religious liberty is more than just
ritual: “It applies not only to formal houses of worship, but to para-church
ministries, religious educational and social service organizations, and
individual believers trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith
not only at church, but at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the workplace.” While I do not agree with the tax codes’ current
benefits it gives to state religious organizations, I do agree with Sprigg in
the sense that the government should not impede on the rights of business
owners. As an independent my political ideals often find themselves neither
travelling too far to the left or right. One of my feelings is that business
should be allowed to operate their business as they see fit. That is the power
of the free market. Personally I would be disgusted by a business that would
not sell their product to homosexuals or other minorities. In turn, I would not
shop there. The business too would be losing money by turning away possible
patrons found within these minorities. Again, this is still an issue that
Sprigg has with the government laws emplaced to prevent discrimination. His
lack of empathy for homosexuals are based upon his feelings, and laws should
never be governed by emotion. Unfortunately in today’s society people often
lack this logic.
The last argument from
Sprigg I will debate upon is the conservative horrifying view that homosexual
marriage will lead to a demand for legalized polygamy. The irony laced within his text is humorous.
On one hand it is obvious that his ideals come from a Christian background. Undoubtedly he has quoted Leviticus 18:22 at
some point in is lifetime. Is he not aware that polygamy is common in the
bible? All throughout the Old Testament (the book Leviticus is in) polygamy is
expressed commonly. Genesis, Chronicles, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus all speak
about how common polygamy was in the bible, even amongst prophets. It is also
scientific fact that polygamy has existed extensively historically. While The
New Testament is known to condemn polygamy, it also does not condemn homosexual
relations anywhere, so why stick to The Old Testament in regards to
anti-homosexual beliefs? Katha Pollitt
points out in her article “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?” that “marriage as
we understand it – voluntary, monogamous, legally egalitarian, based on love,
involving adults only – is a pretty recent phenomenon. For much of ancient
history, polygyny was the rule” (571).
The common argument people hear is that ways have changed since
then. Of which I reply they are right.
Ways have changed, and views on homosexuality should change too.
Another argument that
has been plaguing homosexual marriage rights is a view best outlined by Charles
Colson. While Sprigg outlines this same argument in his article, Colson
describes his argument in what can only be viewed as a textbook description of
logical fallacy. In Colson’s argument (and many like it) he provides us with
several disturbing statistics about broken homes, juvenile delinquents,
rapists, murders, and ties all of this in with the fact that they never had a
father (577). Essentially he is saying homosexual parents lack the ability to
play both roles within child rearing. To make this assumption is obtuse and
definitely qualifies as a “hasty generalization.” The fact is that it is difficult to study
actual outcomes of homosexual parenting because there are so few of them. While
some research has been conducted, the data is often conflicting and misleading
depending on who is presenting it. It is important to ask yourself regardless
of the data being presented: Can we allow people to make their own choices in
this country both good and bad, so long as they are not physically or financially
hurting anyone? I think the answer is yes, and it always has been yes. We do
not outlaw single parenting, bad parenting (except in cases of abuse/neglect),
and we should not outlaw gay marriage because it can lead to the possibilities
of homosexuals parenting children.
As I wrap things up I
want to tell you that I do not think homosexual marriage is a simple issue to
tackle. However, it is a human right that should be afforded to those that wish
to attain it. Marriage is an institution that was created by man, and it has
evolved throughout history. Unfortunately, we live in a country that encourages
its people to get married by affording married couples benefits. Add to that the distribution of misinformation,
emotional ties of religion, and the constant feelings of self-entitlement
within this country and anyone can see why this is such a heated debate in
today’s society. As I said earlier though, it is important to not let people’s
emotions govern this country. If we as Americans can remove human emotion and
focus on laws that prevent physical, or financial harm instead of “hurt
feelings” I think we would have a pretty good start. By allowing people to make
their own choices, live their own lives, love who they want to love, and
believe what they want to believe we will truly become a country of freedom.
The only real great abomination in our society is denying individuals the same
rights as others regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. And while I do not agree with religion in most
aspects, I think we can all agree Jesus said it right in his second greatest
commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22.39).
Works
Cited
.
Colson, Charles. “Gay
“Marriage”: Societal Suicide.” The
Bedford Reader. Ed. X. J. Kennedy, Dorothy
M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. 11th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2012.
576-578. Print.
Kellard, James. "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal." Gay Marriage. Ed.
Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Do We Have a Constitutional Right to Ban Gay Marriage?" 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Pollitt, Katha. “What’s
Wrong with Gay Marriage?” The Bedford
Reader. Ed. X. J. Kennedy, Dorothy M.
Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. 11th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 570-572.
Print
Sprigg, Peter. "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal." Gay Marriage. Ed.
Debra A. Miller. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage." Family Research Council,
2011. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Apr.
2015
The Catholic Bible. Personal Study Edition. Ed. Jean Marie
Hiesberger. Oxford University Press. 1995.
Print.
