To Marry or Not To Marry

Gays and Lesbians are fighting for the right to marry legally. We are fighting for the chance to enjoy the 1100 plus rights awarded to our straight counterparts when they utter those words, "I Do." The obstacle standing in our way is religious bigotry along with lies and smear campaigns put forth to paint homosexuals as sexual deviants who only want to push an agenda which include converting your children and trampling your rights to freedom of religion. This could be further from the truth.



To start with, the main argument put forth against gay marriage is the institution of marriage itself. We are told the institution of marriage consists of the union between one man and one woman. We are led to believe this union is essential to the furthering of the human race, in other words, for procreation. In looking back throughout history, marriage has also been defined by other "norms." In ancient times, including biblical times, marriage was a pre-arranged business deal between two families to secure their standing in a social caste system. Wives were betrothed for a sum of money, property or other means to gain power and persuasion amongst the ruling class. Additionally, polygamous relationships were the norm as was the marriage between barely pubescent girls to adult men. Typically, these marriages were all within the same race and mixing races was not permitted, until the mid 20th century. The 1900's saw marriage evolve radically when the definition changed to not only include mixed races but to outlaw polygamous marriages and those marriages between younger teenaged girls and adult men. In regards to the whole argument about procreation, this is a non issue. Otherwise, marriages resulting in no offspring would be null and void. Furthermore, in talking about barren couples, the science of in vitro or other means to artificially create a baby should fly directly in the face of any religious dogma. The whole notion of creating something obviously meant to not be seems to not cause even a ripple among the religious crowd.



Religius groups also mean to cause a diversion to the whole marriage debate by bringing innocent children into the picture. They maintain that by allowing gay marriage, schools will be forced to teach homosexuality as part of the school curriculum. This is not the case. Besides, homosexuality is already taught somewhat in school in the area of human sexuality. Next, these groups claim that ALL homosexuals are pushing an agenda which include converting innocent children to the gay lifestyle. This is an outright lie and is carried out with the intent to play on people's fear. To protect your child is every parent's main concern and when you present a homosexual as a predator you are creating an atmosphere where the parent has no choice but to side with the liars. In addition to preying on innocent children, some of the opponents also bring their own religion into play by saying the heads of their church will be forced to perform marriage rites to gays and lesbians in order to comply with their tax exempt status. For myself, I can not see forcing a minister or priest to marry me and my partner against their will or belief. I would seek out someone who would have no problem in performing this rite. Again, I believe fear plays a role in this angle as well. People's beliefs are so intrinsic to who they are that any affront against them is an assault on them and again, when attacked, who wouldn't protect themselves?

So we have seen how the "definition" of marriage has changed throughout history. We have seen how fear tactics have been deployed to divert attention from the issue at hand. Finally, I want to address the separation of church and state. A friend of mine has repeatedly pointed out to me that the idea of separation of church and state is not outlined anywhere in our founding documents. To understand this concept we have to explore the motives of our founding fathers and interpret, just like we do the bible, their actions. All we have to do is look at a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. In this letter he stresses the importance of government not intervening in any matter related to a religious institution. While I think we can all agree that the first Americans were deeply religious, I think we can also agree that they were fleeing England to avoid persecution for their religious beliefs. This is why we have freedom of religion and furthermore, this is why we have no National religion. Otherwise, atheists should not be allowed to get married as well as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or any other non-Christian. If we are going to rule by religion, then let's examine divorce rates, pre-marital sex, out of wedlock births and adultery. If we aren't going to allow gays and lesbians to get married because of religious dogma then we shouldn't allow the many other transgressions against the sacred institution of marriage. To take it a step further, the government should really get out of the marriage business and stop offering "special" rights to heterosexuals simply because they choose to get married.

In conclusion, I want to point out the absurdity of voting on the rights of a minority by a majority. While majority rule is the backbone of our Democratic society, it does not reach so far as to oppress a minority group and strip them of their equal rights as outlined by the Constitution. If the old adage about history repeating itself is true, we are definitely on the upswing. With State Supreme Court decisions being overturned by majority vote at the polls, it should stand to reason that eventually this will not be the case. Like all Civil Right movements within the last century, it has been the Supreme Court that has had to step in and go against popular opinion and do the right thing. We just have to hope this will happen soon.

To Be or Not To Be - Part II

I thought this second part would be easy to write. The pent up anger and frustration in me would come out so easily I thought. However, I am faced with a dilemma. In talking with a friend about the nature of this post, she cautioned me about crossing the line of imposing my own beliefs onto those I don’t agree with or vice versa. I respect that. Before going any further though, I think I need to give a little background into my own experience with organized religion.

By the time I was thirteen, I had been to many different churches. Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic and The Church or Christ all claim to belong to the greater faith of Christianity but differ dramatically in their interpretation of the Bible. I have seen this first hand. I guess this is why, as an adult, I have rejected all things pertaining to organized religion. In MY opinion, I believe religion is nothing more than a belief system designed by man to control the masses. People since the dawn of time have always been afraid of the unknown. Through a system of gods and beliefs, they have managed to soothe their worries and calm their fears because they have an answer. Sometimes this answer is that there is no answer or we are not to know the answer. I have always been amazed that a group of people can honestly say to another group of people that their belief system is not only superior but the ONLY belief system thereby, damning the other group to some gruesome fate. Likewise, I find it appalling that this same group of people can interpret their bible anyway they see fit to fit the agenda of the day.

In attempting to interpret the Bible, the extremist right of the Christian faith will stop at nothing to persuade the gullible that homosexuality is such a grievous sin that God would condone an automatic death sentence to all homosexuals. It is my understanding that a sin is a sin is a sin. While there are many “commandments” listed in the Bible, only ten are highlighted and of those ten, only two are actual laws in the US. This persuasion comes in the form of a mere recitation of a few versus scattered throughout the Bible. The arguments also call on the question of nature saying that homosexuality defies the natural law of how we are created.

The most brandied about verse come from the book of Leviticus. Basically, it states that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman. The problem I have with this verse being used as “proof” that God disapproves of homosexuality is that this verse is taken out of context. If we are to follow this verse then why do we not follow the verses surrounding it, mainly the ones that talk about not eating shellfish or stoning a child who talks back to their parents? Supposedly, these rules are negated in the New Testament by Jesus Chris himself, therefore, I don’t see how we can pick and choose which ones to ignore and which ones we revere. Next, we must look at the context in which these were written. In the time of Moses, women were not seen as equals. They were second class citizens at best and more likely treated as possessions. The verse talks about in battle or war where upon conquering the enemy, it was customary to defile them by basically raping them thereby treating them as women. A couple of other verses condemning homosexuality are also interpreted according to what the interpreter wants the verse to say. In the end though, the Bible clearly states that all sins can be washed away with the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior. In addition, as also preached, let thee without sin cast the first stone and ye shall not judge lest ye also be judged. I think that pretty much clears up the whole Homosexuality issue.

Next, the most compelling argument against Homosexuality occurring naturally comes in the argument that God created man in his image in his image he created man. Next, God created woman to compliment man and to give him companionship. The whole idea of man and woman was to populate the world. So the fact that homosexual relationships can not produce offspring makes this coupling “unnatural.” In recent decades we have seen heterosexual relationships form where no offspring can be produced “naturally” thus creating a method through science to make this possible. I don’t hear the religious fervor over this “unnatural” producing of offspring. Additionally, we have seen many cases in the animal kingdom where same sex partners come together and shun the opposite sex. We have even seen cases where the same sex couple will “adopt” another’s offspring and raise it as their own. Funny, how in a world without the influence of God, this phenomenon can happen so naturally.

In 1973, the American Psychological Association declassified Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Debates ensued and accusations flew against the board accusing them of caving in to outside activists influence or claiming it the result of an inside job. Next, reparative therapy or conversion therapy cropped up claiming to “cure” homosexuals of their deviant behavior. I personally had an email exchange with one of the subjects cited in a study where the results showed a significant number of participants converted over to heterosexuality. There were certain degrees though, a certain number had not yet had sex with a member of the opposite sex while another group had gone so far as to develop a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. The individual I spoke with was lumped in with the group not yet inducted into their heterosexuality. I asked if any follow up study was conducted. You know, to see if there was any backsliding or if the middle group had graduated to full blown heterosexuals. He stated no, there was no follow up. I asked him if he still lusted after members of the same sex, he said that yes, he did. However, these thoughts were more and more becoming less frequent. I finally told him I thought he was a homosexual living a heterosexual’s lifestyle. He never wrote back. The point of this being, there is no conclusive evidence that someone can alter their sexuality. Most of the participants in this study came from a family rooted in religion. To conduct a fair and accurate study, it has always been my understanding that you have to include a control group and that all participants must be free from biases or any other factor which could taint the results. This was not the case. Furthermore, it is my opinion, that the reason these religious zealots fight to show that conversion therapy works or that the APA made a mistake by declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder is so that they do not have to admit that GOD made us this way. Because if GOD made us homosexuals, how can he make a mistake?

So there you have it. The real reason these fanatics twist the truth, spread lies and choose to convey their message through fear tactics is to protect their own faith. To cover up the fallacies which exist in their texts is the only way to further their own agendas. I will state that I don’t care what you choose to believe. You can choose to believe whatever you want, just don’t expect me to believe the same. I also call out to all the Christians who believe that God loves everybody and that Jesus Christ truly died for our sins so we don’t have to pay for them to come out and call out these bigots for their shameful behavior. I find it appalling that these liars are not held accountable for their words of hatred and condemnation under the false approval of God! I find it sad that their words carry such weight and succeed in spoiling the minds of millions blinding them from seeing the true message of their God! A message of acceptance and love.