Who Are You to Judge?

I decided I would review the different aspects and bigoted argument points that are being used lately to dismiss the idea of same-sex marriage.

Abomination – Leviticus 18:22 is the verse that is used to prove that homosexuality is a sin or “abomination”.  Homosexuality was not a term used in English until the late 1800s and there is no Hebrew word for homosexual, how the translators of the original bible came to the conclusion to use this term I suppose will never be known. The Hebrew text also only refers to male to male, not female to female relations. Does this mean that lesbians are not abominations? Or maybe that’s just inferred… Recently, there is mounting evidence that the Holiness Code was to prohibit Pagan ritual behavior, which included men having sex with each other as ritualistic behavior, unrelated to lust or love. This is understandable from a Christian point of view, since these types of rituals would usually be performed as worship to another god, and this would be in direct violation of God’s top rule “Thou shall have no other God’s before me” and “Do not worship false idols”. The Hebrew word for abomination (to’ebah) is defined as “ritually unclean”, I suppose this would go along with the former statements. A word for word translation also seems to point to a separate meaning, prohibiting where gay sex may occur (not in a womans bed) not so much that it shouldn’t be with each other. All is only applicable under Mosaic Law, though, which is only to be followed by the ancient Israelites and inhabitants of Israel (Jewish) since the release of the New Testament. This is also backed up by the verses quoted below. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

Romans 6:14 – For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage. 3 So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress. 4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. For apart from the law, sin is dead. 9 And I was once alive apart from the law, but with the coming of the commandment sin became alive 10 and I died. So I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life brought death! 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it I died. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin, so that it would be shown to be sin, produced death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am nonspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.

Galatians 3:10 – For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.” 11 Now it is clear no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous one will live by faith. 12 But the law is not based on faith, but the one who does the works of the law will live by them. 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)

Romans 10:4 – For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.

http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Ordained by God – Many argue that marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. The main purpose for this union is for procreation. This would exclude infertile couples, atheists, Muslims and every other non Judeo-oriented religion from being allowed to marry under this idea since those people would either be unable to procreate or would not accept the idea that their marriage was ordained by the Christian God. But that is beside the fact, gays are not arguing for religious recognition, only civil rights and other applicable rights that would be bestowed upon a married straight couple, so that their relationship would be protected from the state from discrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_marriage

Choice - That gay is a choice, so making marriage between a man and a woman isn’t actually violating their rights because they can choose to be with a woman as well. Though, the only group of people that are so adamant about this fact are short of entirely made up of heterosexuals and Christians. How a straight male can decide something that should and is only an available determination by homosexual people, is absolutely beyond me. I can be one to say without a sliver of a doubt, that the burden of the homosexual lifestyle is the furthest thing from a “choice”. Why would an individual make a concerted decision to be associated with one of the most hated, harassed and shamed groups of people humankind may ever know? Do these people find pleasure in the constant taunting they experience in high school, and pathetically, sometimes from their own family? With people actively assaulting and even murdering gays, do these people believe that they are honest about their sexuality for some type of rush? There is too much research to even begin to reference all the studies that have been done that undoubtedly link homosexuality to a mix of genetics and environment. Therefore, persecuting these people only further solidifies your outcome when Judgment Day rolls around.

Christian Nation – This can easily be dismissed by multiple documents written by several of the founders including the one man who drafted the paper that declared our independence. Thomas Jefferson’s dismissal of Christianity in its general form is clearly evident when he created the Jefferson Bible, Jefferson did believe in the teachings of Jesus, but was more or less a Deist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible The constitution is a secular document, and no where does it ever reference “God”. Though the Constitution does specifically state that the government may not make any law respecting one religion over another, stated clearly in the very first amendment. Why, if the founders were vehemently devout Christians, would they create equality among religion as far as the government is concerned. Christians use the reference of Common Law in the Constitution to justify the fact of our Christian roots, though Thomas Jefferson himself clarified that the Common Law they are referring to is in relation to what was established by the Saxons.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)”

Majority Rule – The argument that what occurred in California reflects “majority rule” and that the decision is final as well as constitutional. But, luckily we don’t operate under a democracy in this country. We were founded as a Representative Republic, and under this form of government the minority is protected from abuses of the majority. Therefore, regardless of how the citizens of California voted, if their decision infringes on the rights of a particular group of people than their decision is null and void. Seen as how Proposition 8′s passage violated several Amendments of the U.S. Constitution then it’s over turning is not only valid, but necessary. Watch this video for a more clear and concise explanation of this from the actual conservative constitutional lawyer that argued the lawsuit against Proposition 8.

From a libertarian standpoint, unless gay marriage were to in some way affect the prosperity or liberty of another person just because it was taking place in the private lives of separate people, that would be basis to restrict such an institution. But the fact stands, gay marriage in no way, shape or form has the ability to alter any single persons ability to lead a happy and prosperous life. Why is what an individual does in their private life, in their own home, something that attracts the attention of so many as something that must be stopped and destroyed? This question will forever baffle me. Leave each other alone, let everyone and anyone lead a life that they see fit for themselves. As long as you are not infringing on my rights as a person, then I have no reason to make any attempt whatsoever to do the same to you. When will this country just realize that one simple fact?

Possibly never…

Advertisement