2005-02-03 - 10:12 p.m.
"Kids should not be taught that homosexuality is just another 'lifestyle' or that it is morally equivalent to heterosexuality."
-- James Dobson, founder Focus on the Family
Boy was I upset when I read this. It is not as if this was news to me...I am well aware of the fact that a great many people think homosexuality immoral and that to teach our children that it is an acceptable lifestyle is tantamount to negligence. Normally, after reading something like this, I would sit down and write an eloquently stated, elitist, condescending editorial about those in opposition to my views, then go to sleep thinking I had done the world a favor. However, if sixteen months of therapy has taught me one thing, it is that everyone thinks their viewpoint is the educated, prudent, morally correct one, and snidness accomplishes nothing.
Instead, I thought I would try something different. While driving back from class one night, I argued, with myself, against gay rights. I tried to see the other side of the issue and come up with arguments against my own views, then debate them and see if I could come up with counter-arguments against the opposition's opinions. I realize, of course, that this was far from being a fair fight...after all, my point of view is well to one side of the issue. However, for the first time, I was acknowledging the opposition's viewpoint. It turns out that I was able to make one very convincing argument against gay rights which I could not put down satisfactorily . It led me to an interesting conclusion...in the same way that there is no truth, only perception, there are no absolute morals, only opinions.
I have had a great many discussions on this issue with a great many people - ask anyone who knows me...they'll roll their eyes and agree. In the course of these discussions, I have consistently heard four arguments against gay rights. Often, the first one brought up is the fact that the bible states homosexuality to be a sin. Actually, to be perfectly accurate, it states homosexual activities to be a sin (Lev. 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"). This argument is fairly easy to put down - after all, if we fashioned legislation after old testament law, life would be interesting to say the least.
But Nicholas, don't you know that Christ's coming brought with it a new testament, thereby eliminating the need to follow the old. While it is dependent upon which translation you read, several versions of the new testament repeatedly state fornication to be a sin (fornication: sex outside of marriage).
Well, life would be more recognizable, but still quite unacceptable were we to adopt the new testament as a way of life [Orlando, cut that hair (1 Cor. 11:14), women, no more jewelry, shut up in church, and stop trying to teach us men anything (1 Tim 2:8,11-12) and oh yeah, no more being friends with non-Christians (2 Cor. 6:14)].
But Nicholas, I don't need to point out biblical absurdities to prevent our laws from being fashioned after religious documentation...the first amendment does that for me (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Want further proof...imagine the reaction that would ensue a suggestion that we fashion our laws after passages from the Qur'an!
Fine, you liberal tree-huger...so we don't use the bible to justify opposition to gay rights. Consider argument number two - homosexuality is unnatural.
How is it unnatural, you right wing nut-job? It occurs in every species of the animal kingdom. Are you suggesting that a homosexual dog makes a conscious choice not to hang with his bitches - and if so, does he go to hell? I thought all dogs went to heaven?
Besides, even if it is unnatural, since when is that a sin? As a society, we praise many unnatural talents and abilities. Every four years, the world watches in awe as each nation's finest athletes perform feats which are anything but natural. It's not natural to be paralyzed, autistic or a midget either, but we hardly try to shield our kids from these groups.
You bring up a good point, you government-subsidy-loving hippie. Then let's talk about limits. If we allow our society to embrace homosexuality and give one man the right to marry another, what's next...do we allow a man to marry his cousin...a child...how about a dog? Where do we draw the line?
I don't know where we draw the line you bomb-happy McCarthiest...but couldn't we use that same rationale to argue against heterosexual marriage? I mean, imagine way back when if someone had said 'well, if we allow men to marry women, what's next...men...his cousin...his parakeet?' You're using the 'line' argument...it's been used before and it has a fatal flaw...it defeats itself. The 'line' has been moved already...we moved it to recognize inter-racial marriage in 1967. The idea that lessening a limitation spells it's eventual doom is ridiculous - the very existence of a limitation indicates a lessoning of restrictions, a moving of the 'line.'
[Imagine if you will, a beam of bright white light coming down from above...and harp music]
You know what...I agree with you. Most Americans do think gay marriage is immoral, and do you know how I know that...because it hasn't been accepted...yet. Think about it...in the early nineteen hundreds, a relative minority of the US population saw segregation as a wrong. Now, a relative minority see it as a right. Between then and now, we slowly began to see it as an evil, and in the sixties, enough people finally agreed to make it possible for the Civil Rights Act to be passed. The liberal, left-wing Nicholas thinks same thing is going to happen with gay marriage, but he may be wrong. The fact that it has been brought to the forefront of our social discussion means there are finally enough people in favor to make it worth arguing. Someday, enough minds might be changed to shift the majority opinion, and only then will it become legal and eventually accepted.
I have spent so much time discussing whether or not homosexuality is moral by reciting biblical passages and our Constitution, all the while missing the important point. Morals aren't written passages or eloquent quotations, and they certainly aren't constant. Morals are the majority opinion of whatever body is being considered. In this case, the body is the American public and the opinion is that homosexuality is wrong. So if it is the job of our legislators to represent the majority opinion by our written law, then I understand why gay marriage remains illegal. However, if fidelity to our nation's opinion is the sworn task of our legislature, then surely the most noble of objectives is to change the nation's opinion, one person at a time - regardless of your position.
I'm glad we had this discussion...things are much clearer now. Those who fight the social acceptance of homosexuality are really no different from me. They see what they consider to be an impending wrong and are fighting to keep it at bay. I have a feeling that just as blacks and women have achieved equality through persistence and patience, so too will our gay colleagues, but for the first time, I understand why so many think I'm wrong.
I have a newfound respect for those that argue against me...they are trying to change my mind, just like I'm trying to change their's.
