Inalienable Rights, Common Law & the Gay
by Jason GodeskyMuch of the current debate over gay marriage misses the biggest point entirely. The question is not at all what we think of homosexuality; it is not about building a godly society, nor what we condone or condemn as a society, nor about health insurance or tax breaks. At issue is our very formulation of freedom itself. There are 1,049 rights enjoyed by every citizen of the United States allowed to marry. If we categorically deny these rights to homosexuals, we have created a second class citizenship–and if we do that, then none of us have any rights at all.
The United States is a common law system. The bulk of our law is not written down or passed by a legislature; it is contained in jurisprudence and legal precedent. In truth, jurisprudence is the only law–nothing Congress passes carries the weight of law until it is upheld by the courts. Of late, Republicans have taken to referring to “activist judges” “legislating from the bench,” but of course, judges are the only people in America who have ever truly legislated anything.
As it should be; as the case of gay marriage illustrates so well. The American population is overwhelmingly Christian–and a disturbing subset of that is fundamentalist Christian. In this reading of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin against G-d. Whereas a more enlightened people may simply choose not to sin themselves, America’s fundamentalist Christians would rather see their religious beliefs codified as law. Congress is elected by these teeming hordes of fundamentalists, and as such, are eager to implement their whims. Left to Congress and “the will of the people,” laws banning homosexual marriage–and worse (after all, it was only recently that the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws; it is only in the past year that being gay has even been legal in the United States!)–would easily be passed.
This is precisely the “tyranny of the majority” so many political philosophers warn against in any democratic or republican system, where a bigoted and intolerant majority may run ramshod over the rights of minorities. The United States Constitution was written specifically to avoid this scenario, and to ensure basic rights and liberties to all, regardless of what hateful opinions may hold popular sway.
The proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage does much more than undermine the spirit and purpose of the Constitution, though; it presents a Constitutional crisis which throws our most basic concept of “rights” in limbo.
Why? Because the United States is a Common Law system.
Judges, unlike Congress, do not have to worry about reelection. Their appointments are for life, specifically to free them from the “tyranny of the majority,” and consider the full, logical ramifications of their decisions. Because, unlike Congress, their decisions carry the weight of law.
Take the oft-cited case of Adam and Steve. They would like to marry, and enjoy the 1,049 legal rights protected by the Federal government under marriage, including power of attorney, next of kin status and other essential rights that can become critical in situations where one or the other is hospitalized, killed, or otherwise incapacitated. Under the Christian Right’s dominion, they can’t marry. If Steve dies, then everything he and Adam have built up for themselves over the years–their home and all their possessions–go to Steve’s family, who disowned him a quarter of a century ago and have not spoken to him since. Adam has not only lost the man he’s spent 25 years with, he’s also penniless and on the street, all of his possessions going to a family he never knew, who would just as soon see him dead for his “unnatural abberation.”
But Eve can marry Adam quite easily. So, here is a right–the right to marry Adam–that Eve enjoys, but Steve does not. This violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, this means that there are 1,049 rights available to all other citizens, that are denied to homosexuals categorically.
“But they’re free to marry people of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us!” many retort. In short, they have the right to enjoy the rights of marriage, so long as they stop being gay.
Many groups that have won civil liberties over the past decades resent being compared to homosexuals; like every minority group before them, they seek to pull the ladder up behind them. There is a difference of opinion here, with some, scientifically-minded people arguing that homosexuality is genetically determined, while fundamentalist Christians argue that G-d would not damn a person to Hell from birth, and insist it is a choice.
If homosexuality is genetic, then how does this proposal differ from “But they’re free to marry, as long as they become white!” If homosexuality is a choice, then how does this proposal differ from “But they’re free to marry, as long as they convert to Christianity!”
Therein lies the true crisis of gay marriage, because if we can deny 1,049 rights to homosexuals because they are homosexual, then we have legally defined a second-class citizenship in the United States. Jurisprudence allows us then to create second-class citizenships for any group, at any time, for any reason. And if that’s the case, then our entire concept of a “right” ends.
Critics will remind me that such a “slippery slope” argument is a logical fallacy, but in a common law system such as ours, the “slippery slope” is just a more charged way of saying “jurisprudence.” Cases build on past cases to create a system of legal precedence. Just look at the history of how the Fourteenth Amendment, passed to protect freed slaves, was used to usher in our modern concepts of corporate personhood. In a common law system, unforeseen consequences are the norm. A judge must think systemically of the consequences of his actions, and not be ruled by the tyranny of an intolerant majority, as Congress is.
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts has already ruled that not allowing homosexuals to marry violates the Fourteenth Amendment; when married (pardon my pun) to an upheld ban on gay marriage, then we are thrown into a Constitutional crisis where the Fourteenth Amendment both is and is not law.
Basically, jurisprudence simply puts a finer, logical edge on the ancient truth that the only guarantee of my freedom is yours. Even if we are religiously opposed to homosexuality itself, what good is virtue if we are not free to sin? And the same legal precedence we allow here to abolish what we may think of as “ungodly” may very soon be used against us and the things we value.
“But G-d hates dem queers!”
Maybe, but judging simply by time spent, it would seem that G-d is far more preoccupied with bacon cheeseburgers and cotton-nylon shirts.
After all, if G-d refers to homosexuality at all in the Bible, it’s only in very oblique terms, while kosher laws and other commandments Christians today ignore are iterated in painstaking detail.
The only place where G-d refers to homosexuality directly is in Leviticus 20:13. Interestingly, though, the book of Leviticus is so named for the tribe of Levi, because it’s a book of rules for priests. Moreover, the context of the chapter makes it clear that what is being banned is not homosexuality per se, so much as it is a particular cult that once existed in Palestine, that of Molech.
Some others have interpreted the story of Sodom & Gemorrah as G-d’s punishment for homosexuals. It is from this interpretation that we have the term "sodomy," a word so broad in English usage that even monogamous, vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman might be called sodomy if it isn’t in the missionary position. However, this interpretation is rather recent. Josephus claimed their sin was pride; in the Talmud, it is cruelty and greed, as in the Midrash. The Prophet Jeremaiah implies that their sin had something to do with adultery, deceit or other, generalized "wickedness." Ezekiel quite explicitly states that Sodom’s sin was pride and a failure to aid "the poor and needy."
Jesus only refers to homosexuality if we accept the novel interpretation of Sodom and Gemorrah adopted by fundamentalist Christians in contradiction to the Bible’s teachings; even in this interpretation, though, the only thing Jesus has to say on the subject is–repeatedly–that the Last Day will render far harsher judgements on various religious leaders who look after their own wealth and political power by sowing intolerance and bigotry with a deceitful interpretation of G-d’s Scriptures.
Hmmm….
“But marriage has always been one man and one woman!”
Nothing could be further from the truth. 84% of the world’s cultures are polygamous (83% polygynous, 1% polyandrous), while only 16% are monogamous.
A broad, historical view does not improve monogamy’s standing. We find archaeological evidence of polygamy as far back as we find human cultures, and wherever we have written records, history records men with multiple wives.
Nor is polygamy the only counter-proof to this ridiculous claim. Homosexuality is ancient and universal. It was incredibly prevalent in antiquity; among the Greeks and Romans, it was accepted as a commonplace. Plato waxed at length on the subject of homosexual love with young boys in The Symposium. Many Roman emperors, including Hadrian, were absolutely flaming.
The Plains Indians had the two-spirited berdache, and among the Etoro of New Guinea, the only respectable sexual liason is one with another man.
Homosexuality is widespread throughout the animal kingdom, and we find it universally throughout our species. While it obviously cannot be the only mode of sexual intercourse for any population, it is present to some degree in most human populations, and often legitimately recognized by healthier cultures.
It certainly stands to reason, as well, that humans would be primarily polygamous. While our overall reproductive strategy skews K(See r-K Selection), but this differs along gender lines. Males can easily reproduce even into old age; for males, the maximal strategy for genetic reproduction is to inseminate as many females as possible. In other words, males are more r selected. Females must invest time, effort and even life-threatening labor into offspring; this makes them inherently K reproducers. Where males seek to inseminate as many women as possible, females look for males who will help rear offspring and provide for them and their children.
Polygamy is the perfect compromise for these two competing strategies; males get as many mates as they can support, while females have the providers they are looking for. By contrast, monogamy is enitrely a K strategy, entirely ignoring male interests.
Humans are perfectly designed polygamists; if monogamy is the only form of marriage condoned by G-d, then the only, blasphemous conclusion left is that the Christian fundamentalist god is a piss-poor designer.
Me, I prefer to believe that G-d does know what he’s doing, that all of history and anthropology is not a lie planted by the Devil, and that fundamentalists simply need to try reading a Bible some time to see how egregious their fallacies are.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 January 2005 @ 11:52 AM
Give me a break! how dare you compare your tiny mind with God’s ideals. What have you ever created. Not only is homosexuality morally wrong it’s biologically unnatural and completely non-productive.Immorality and homosexuality are human trait only.Even animals living by instinct alone ,realize the normal and productive aspect of life.Only humans participate in such abnormal and immoral activities, and you think God is a poor designer and i suppose you could do so much better? This world was here in a perfect and very productive state long before human envolvment. Man has done nothing but distroy this perfect world trying to justify his evil lust and abnormal behavior.Yes, God’s design is perfect and he has no tolerence for such error. How in the world can such a small particle size human mind such as ours dare challenge GOD’S. You sir are a moron. It really does’nt matter wheather you believe that there are severe consequences for the filth that rolls off the tip of your tonuge and others like you, but there is.It does’nt matter wheather you believe in hell or not,but there is.
Comment by steve — 3 February 2005 @ 10:07 PM
Actually, I think G-d is an excellent designer; it is fundamentalists who blaspheme him and call him a moron. Not in so many words, of course, but by implication. Theirs is a god who makes humans perfectly suited for polygamy, and then tells them to be monogamous. My G-d is not so foolish; my G-d’s plan is best expressed in the glory of his Creation. It is a work of breath-taking elegance. The true word of G-d is too great to be captured in human speech; it is found in the dust beneath your feet, in the marrow of your bones, and burning in the heart of the sun. Through all creation there is a consistent message. It is the same message that Scriptures so palely imitate: that G-d knows every hair on our head, that he lives in our every breath and heart beat. To love one another as we love ourselves, for we are all inextricable bound to one another–and G-d lives within us all, and beyond us all.
Which is the opposite of the hate-filled, ignorant message spewed by the blasphemous Christian fundamentalists who presume to speak for him. They tell us to damn that which G-d has made, and to deny his creation. In a Bible filled with verses about loving your neighbor, forgiving your brother even the most terrible wrongs he does to you, and the dangers of presuming to take G-d’s role as the judge of all souls, these cretins managed to salvage half a dozen verses and twist them to their own hateful agenda. A few verses out of whole books is all they need to manipulate the hate and rage of millions. They cultivate ignorance and bigotry on a massive scale, and by corrupting that pale imitation of G-d’s word as humbled by human language, turn those who call on G-d’s name into the most implacable enemies of everything he ever taught us.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
– Matthew 7:15-23
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 February 2005 @ 10:24 PM
So I guess we’re not counting all those cases of homosexual intercourse among animal species.
Hmmmm…just think about that.
You know, if the word of God is so obviously perfect, you wouldn’t think he’d have a problem with people thinking about it. After all, if it’s perfect, wouldn’t you think that thinking about it would lead you to the same conclusion?
Oh yeah?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 3 February 2005 @ 10:37 PM
It is interesting to read this site, I’ve only recently found it. I enjoyed the article on the Red state Blue state friction and the one on vegetarianism. But I most certainly disagree with your column here. For one thing it is assumed from the start that Homosexuals are to be considered a minority as this pertains to law. It’s somewhat difficult for me to try and convey what I mean by this, but I’ll attempt to. There are many different lines that can be drawn around people to create “groups.” There are labels for people such as murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drunkards, child molesters, etc. Now these people do have rights under the Constitution but these rights are not granted to them because they are “murderers,â€? “rapists,â€? “thieves,â€? or whatever but because they are Americans. Now with Homosexuals a normal argument will run that “because a Homosexual is mentally (either through genetics or choice, doesn’t matter) dispositioned to be attracted to those of the same sex they ought to be able to marry as Heterosexuals are allowed.â€? But this argument I do not believe holds much weight since it cannot also be said of a child molester that “because they are mentally dispositioned to be attracted to children that they ought to be allowed to marry and have sex with children.â€? This argument also does not work for habitually thieves that “because they are naturally inclined to steal they ought to be allowed to go ahead and steal.â€? The government obviously does not allow these things to go on and so it is quite clear that there is a precedence of government being allowed to pass legislation simply based upon morality. I would argue actually that this is the only true role of government since if all men were in fact good we would have no need for government.
Now if Homosexuality is indeed immoral then it would seem that the government can outlaw homosexuality as an act and deny homosexual marriage without any real problem. There are philosophers (I am not including names because quite simply I am horrible with names) who argue that any act can be analyzed by playing a mind game of “what if everyone did it?� If everyone for example were to kill people they disliked we would soon be left with a population consisting of, at best, one badly wounded individual. Or if everyone were to steal whatever they wanted, people would no longer work because as soon as they earned something it would be stolen, and with the continuous theft going on violence and chaos would ultimate rule. Now if everyone were to become Homosexual, and act upon it, we would obviously no longer exist.
I might also add that just because a person feels like killing someone does not mean that they should kill someone. Now just because a person feels attracted to someone of the same sex does that mean that they should go sleep with them? I do not believe anyone should pretend to not have emotions, but I do believe in exercising restraint in the decision making process. As far as I can tell emotion, though it should not be wholly excluded, does not justify anything morally.
Another item cited is the history of homosexuality and its prevalence. Merely citing that something exists and has existed does not justify its existence, this is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. It is also mentioned that, “84% of the world’s cultures are polygamous (83% polygynous, 1% polyandrous), while only 16% are monogamous.â€? Yeah? What percentage is Homosexual? As far as I can see there 84% + 16% puts us at 0% left over for Homosexual marriage within all the cultures of the world? How is this an argument for Homosexual marriage?
I notice also that the Bible is mentioned in this article and it attempts to convey the idea that the Bible is vague on this subject. I must say I cannot hold back my laughter on this. The article says: “The only place where G-d refers to homosexuality directly is in Leviticus 20:13.� The specific wording of that passage is: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.� Well if that’s not specific enough, it just so happens to be that this isn’t the only place it is specifically referred to, it is also mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 and specifically states: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.� Now on to the next part, indeed the book of Leviticus is named after the Levites or priestly tribe but the laws which pertain only to priests always clearly say something along the lines of: “and the priest shall…� I might also add that the context that it is in does not cast doubt as to whether or not they actually condemning the act. It is one law in a long list of laws, each one saying what is and isn’t allowed. As for the group who worshiped Molech that group was condemned for worshiping a false god, but also for their various evil practices which included homosexuality and child sacrifice. And just for grins I would like to add the quote: “fundamentalists simply need to try reading a Bible some time to see how egregious their fallacies are.� � I could go on and talk about Sodom and Gemorrah but quite frankly your link there shows what he was talking about, and if that is vague then I suppose I do not know what specific is.
As far as slippery slopes go the only one that I can see is excusing the inexcusable in one particular case (Homosexuality) and its carry over effects to other realms of morality within society. Homosexuality was never endorsed by early America and we have been quite fine as far as the rights of everyone else, why is it different now? Don’t say that early America did not condone it either, I never remember hearing of homosexual marriages in George Washington’s day and if the condition is indeed genetic then there were as many Homosexuals around then as there are now. Quite frankly this entire article seems to be grasping at straws and attempting to say that black is in fact white, up is down, specific is vague, and evil is good.
Comment by Kevin — 21 August 2005 @ 5:24 AM
That’s just an absurd comparison. Child molesters aren’t allowed to marry children because molestation is a violation of the child’s rights (that, and children can’t legally enter into such an agreement anyway). Thieves aren’t allowed to steal because theft is a violation of somebody’s rights. With gay marriage, nobody’s rights are being violated. Nobody is being hurt. The only reason not to allow it is pure bigotry.
Because one of the most common arguments given for why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed is that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This obviously is not the case if you look at the actual data, and therefore the argument falls apart.
And there actually are societies where homosexuality is considered the norm, and heterosexual intercourse is something disgusting that is only done for the purposes of reproduction.
Much of the Hebrew Bible was written as Hebrew propaganda. A good chunk of the Torah is devoted to explaining why it was okay for the Hebrews to kill all of their enemies. As such, a lot of this part of the Bible is about condemning their enemies in everything they do…and I mean everything. Now when I read this section, it seems pretty clear to me that the bit about homosexuality being evil was mostly a dig at the people who worshipped Molech. Because if you teach all your people that this practice is evil, then it’s a lot less likely that they’ll run off and start worshipping Molech. That’s just the way the Hebrews of the time thought.
Actually, it’s not vague. The Bible specifically says that the sin of Sodom and Gemoorah was NOT homosexuality.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 August 2005 @ 4:24 PM
I love it when people compare loving, long-term, responsible relationships between two consenting adults to thievery, murder, and child molestation. It just underlines the fact that homosexuality is morally wrong because EWWWWW, ICKY!!!!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 August 2005 @ 5:03 PM
By the way… if everyone was male, the human race could not continue. Therefore, it must be immoral for people to be male.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 August 2005 @ 5:05 PM
Besides the (important) Lockesian argument Michael cited above (i.e., “my rights end where yours begin”), you have mischaracterized the primary argument. Given the 9th ammendment, a strong argument must be made that a person does not have a right; we cannot simply take it away because it is not specifically ennumerated. In the case of various criminals, we have ennumerated that the consequence of a specific action is the removal of various rights. For criminals to lose their rights, they have to do something. For a homosexual to lose the 1,014 different rights and privelages attached to the right to marry granted to every other citizen in the United States, they simply have to be. We are giving them a life sentence, when they have not done anything. That is the very definition of a second-class citizenship.
Complete and utter bullshit. Governments are allowed to pass legislation, and they often cloak it in arguments about morality, but the realms of law and ethics are completely and utterly divorced. Most laws are completely neutral with regards to morality. Most of our laws are tax codes, zoning laws, and other such innocuous things. Those that do speak to what we consider moral issues are scattershot, depending on your conception of morality. Very often, what is legal is immoral, and what is moral is illegal. Rosa Parks was breaking the law, but she was being quite moral, while KKK rallies maintain their law-abidence fastidiously. Laws and morals have as much to do with each other as peanut butter and gasoline.
The government can outlaw homosexuality because it’s a rainy day and they’re feeling bored. The government can do anything the government wants, thanks to the monopoly of force–the idea that force is only legitimate when exercised by the state. Armies and police are OK, but vigilantees are not; militias are only OK if the state agrees to them, etc. Again, morals and laws have nothing to do with each other. Homosexuality can be outlawed any time they like, regardless of whether or not it’s moral.
That said, there are ramifications to that decision. Namely, the fact that it establishes a precedent for de facto second-class citizenship. Whether you think they “deserve” that status or not because your particular scripture labels their life “immoral” does not change the fact that these are citizens of the United States who have committed no act violating the law, yet are denied rights enjoyed by all other citizens. This is precisely the definition of a second-class citizen.
But, to use your phraseology, let’s say we can make people who are “immoral” second-class citizens. I don’t know much about you, Kevin, but I’ll bet you do something that some large portion of the world’s population has deemed immoral. Within the logical of our legal system, as I outlined above, if we deny these rights to homosexuals–whatever our reasons–then the very idea of “rights” becomes meaningless, as they can be removed from any of us, at any time, for any reason.
Immanuel Kant, and his theory–the categorical imperative–is deeply flawed. I have to decide whether or not to flush my toilet at 1632 min. and 44 sec.. If everyone in the world did that … well, we’d all be in deep shit. So flushing your toilet is immoral.
As for your tie-in to homosexuality, you betray a bitter ignorance of the diversity of human cultures. Several New Guinea tribes have been homosexual for millennia, and they were doing just fine right up until they came under European colonial rule.
Interestingly, it was a bunch of heterosexual Europeans that really screwed them over….
True, restraint can be important. However, restraint simply for the sake of restraint is idiotic. Why must I restrain this impulse? In the case of the impulse to kill, there is a simple, obvious, and immediate answer: if I act upon it, I will harm another immeasurably. The harm done to that person far outweighs the simple thrill I would get from the kill. Therefore, I must restrain myself; to do otherwise is pathologically self-obsessed.
In the case of homosexuality, why should I restrain myself? There is no good reason. No one is harmed by it. All I have is, essentially, “‘Cause I said so,” proffered up as if it were not the logical fallacy of bald assertion, simply because it’s supposedly a deity making the bald assertion.
It’s also worth noting that while a tenuous case might be made that scripture condemns homosexuality–and you’re still on shaky ground there–scripture was not hand-written by G-d personally. Even if you believe it was divinely inspired, it was still set down by human hands, giving it a certain margin of error. The only direct evidence we can gather of G-d’s will, if there is such a thing as G-d, must be the result of his creation. And what did he create? In every animal population–including humans–homosexuality occurs in some 10-15% of the population. This results in a random culling of the population. As any farmer will tell you, this is exactly how much of the herd you want to cull in each generation. Such a random culling makes the herd as a whole stronger. G-d created an ecology that needed homosexuals. So, while your attempt to apply Kantian ethics against homosexuality is entirely wrong, we can state the inverse: if we were all heterosexual, then we wouldn’t exist!
You will note I began that section with the quoted question, “But marriage has always been one man and one woman!” I added that comment as an appendix, addressing two particularly vexing points for me, because (1) they are so often cited, and (2) they are the opposite of truth. Not just wrong, or slightly inaccurate–they are the complete inverse of what actually is, like saying that night is bright and day is dark, or that snow is warm and the sun is cold.
Marriage has not always been one man and one woman. One man and one woman is a very new thing, and it’s a very odd thing. It popped up very recently, in one culture, and is about as widespread in the number of cultures it’s found in as the Aborigine practice of slitting the adolescent penis down to the urethra so that it resembles an emu’s.
And now we get to take this up a notch … *evil grin*
You’re quite right, it does! And there are other distinctions, too. “Say to the Israelites,” for example, applies only to the descendants of Abraham. Which is what you find preceding Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 18:22. So if you’re a Gentile, it’s all good. There are sections which begin, “Say to the people,” and these refer to everyone in Israel, Jew or Gentile alike. But then again … we’re not in Israel, are we? Neither do you find either of these verses under those headings.
And all of the acts are associated with the cult of Molech. The Torah has many such passages, where it forbids specifically a list of practices, but you’re supposed to have enough going on upstairs to understand it to mean, “Don’t participate in this cult in any way.” If I tell you, “Don’t attend mass on Sunday; don’t take the wine; don’t take the wafer; don’t listen to the homily; don’t kneel and pray the creed.” Which would be the proper interpretation of this, that I’m telling you not to take communion in a Catholic mass, or not to eat crackers? I specifically said, “don’t take the wafer,” didn’t I??
As Michael pointed out, the Bible is quite specific about Sodom and Gomorrah’s sins. It lists them as pride, anger, lack of concern for the poor … but never, in all the places it ennumerates them, does it ever list any kind of sexual sin. This interpretation first appears in the 18th century, as an inference from the tale of Lot’s daughters and the visitors, using a very naive understanding of Biblical Hebrew that mistakenly takes “know” to be a euphemism for sex.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever put together a cohesive case that homosexuality is, in any way, immoral. The idea of, what, “gateway immoralities”? This is unbelievably preposterous. I’ve known many gays, and many straights. I’ve known gays who were a thousand times more moral than straights I’ve known. The idea that homosexuality will “infect” us with some kind of “plague” of “immorality” sounds to me something like a fear that if we let children ride bicycles, the nation will drown in a fit of exercise.
Early America only considered wealthy, white males to be full citizens. It took a civil war before we stopped considering black people a full–rather than 3/5–person. Women could not own property in early America, or vote until the 1900s. Native Americans–the ones we stole this country from–couldn’t even vote here until 1924. We have never been “quite fine as far as the rights of everyone else.” America has always been “the land of the free” only in our imaginations. For two hundred years, that fantasy has been used to fight for it to become a reality. Every minority that has become recognized, achieved that only after decades of bitter struggle, with their bigoted, small-minded opponents keeping them down with, well, to be honest … exactly the same arguments you’re making here. Similar logic was used by opponents of abolition to argue that slavery was moral–even commanded by G-d. After all, it’s in the Bible….
No, the very first criminal case prosecuted by our nation was a sodomy case in Washington’s army. He was hung. America began as the revolt of a few, greedy, rich white men, that was thankfully dressed and excused by the latest in Enlightenment philosophy. That foot in the door has been used by progressives for two hundred years to bring about rights, freedoms and prosperity that, had our founding fathers foreseen, would have done everything in their power to stop. We got past the slavery that our founding fathers condoned, and, G-d willing, we’ll get past their homophobia, as well.
This is a brand of primitivism I cannot condone. Our worship of the founding fathers is terribly misplaced. They were products of their time and place. Instead of groveling at their statues, we should strive to be better than they were–to work towards a “more perfect union.”
Only because it needs to correct a previously, deeply-believed lie that white is black, down is up, vague is specific, and good is evil.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 August 2005 @ 5:41 PM
I would also add that, even assuming the Bible does condemn homosexuality, you ought to try reading one of my personal favorite stories: “If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 August 2005 @ 6:29 PM
Well these are the legal reasonings behind why these things are not allowed. However, the ultimate reason for the law is actually much simpler, the fact that it is just plain wrong. In Philosophy it is taught that law is, or at the very least ought, to be based upon moral principles rather than legality just for its own sake. You also mention that no one’s rights are being violated and that no one is being hurt. You are essentially using the Harm principle developed by John Stuart Mill, which is indeed applicable to any discussion relating to laws. But it is taught that no single philosophical test can be the end all be all argument for any discussion. Not only that but as you mentioned earlier about the slippery slope an adoption of Gay Marriage could actually be argued as harmful by passing on these immoral values to the next generation or two who come along afterward. It is claimed that no one is forcing such values on anyone but when society does not condemn wrong for what it is, then it is considered acceptable, and whatever is acceptable is essentially viewed as right by those who are younger. As for bigotry, it seems to me the only bigotry on this page is coming from someone who apparently dislikes (I will not go so far as to say hate) Jews, Christians, and the moral laws by which they wish to live and teach their children.
Actually what I hear is “between a man and a woman.� Now “a� is indeed singular but I believe that within in English it is impossible to use a word there that does not denote a number other than saying, “woman/women� which is quite unwieldy within the context of verbal conversation. The underlying message is men and women marrying not men and men or women and women.
Frankly I do not know if you are right on this but I must ask, what society is this you are speaking of? It must be a society in which the population is dwindling because most homosexuals that I have spoken with are quite adamant about their sexuality and would not sleep with a member of the opposite sex even to obtain a child which they may very well desire. All of them I have heard would adopt. So the only ones really reproducing would be Heterosexuals. I think after saying this I may know of what culture you are speaking of. This sounds a great deal like modern day Europe, are you referring to France? I lived in Europe for maybe 4 or 5 years and this does indeed sound like a possible society example for your argument.
Haha, yes indeed so it’s the great “Jewish/Zionist Conspiracy� that we are to blame then? Hehe that’s good. Ok well besides that small laugh, your point about Molech, even though far fetched, may be able to save you on Leviticus 20:13 because the beginning of chapter 20 does start out talking about Molech as you have said. However, Leviticus 18:22 still stands because the beginning of that chapter does not mention Molech at all and is in fact labeled in most Bibles as “Unlawful Sexual Relations.� I might add that this is at the very least, I believe the other verse also still stands quite solidly and this weak argument of yours is, as I’ve said, just grasping at thin air.
Oh? Well Lot, who was an elder of the city of Sodom, thought Homosexuality was sinful. Genesis 19:4-7:
Another passage is Jeremiah 23:13-14:
Another god is mentioned here, this time it is Baal. What is the common thread between Baal and Molech? Well whatya know? It’s sexual immorality, the chief most being Homosexual conduct. If that’s not good enough, that passage goes on to mention several sins which are ascribed to Jerusalem, Sodom, and Gomorrah. The sin which we are primarily concerned with is of course adultery which is linked with Sodom and Gomorrah, that last sentence there. The older definition of adultery included any sexual act that was considered perverse or sinful, adultery is also likened to being the same as idolatry in the eyes of God since the subjects are worshiping the flesh essentially. Now these are a few passages (I got tired at Jeremiah), if necessary there are many, many more. Now if you can find a specific verse that says, “the sin of Sodom and Gemoorah was NOT homosexuality,� then I think you’ve been writing what you’d like to see in your Bible again. But just because a verse says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was such and such does not mean that it was their only sin and it certainly doesn’t mean that it, “was NOT homosexuality.�
Yes the natural response of the conscience which says, “EWWWWW, ICKY!!!!� is in fact a fairly reasonable argument for those old fashioned people who do live by conscience still. Another interesting note, most marriage counselors would not call marriages based solely upon sexual desires, “loving, longterm, responsible relationships.� Rather a more appropriate term would be “perverse.�
What, huh? I believe that this statement is rather absurd and was of course intentionally meant to be absurd. Its an attempt to illustrate a point by drawing a up a similar argument and then comparing the two. There are several fatal flaws with this comparison none of which are suffered by the original test I made (everyone choosing to act upon their homosexuality). First of all it is impossible for everyone to be male as a female (in case you have not been informed) is required to produce offspring and create a large population of only men. It is not impossible for an entire group to suddenly behave Homosexual, if a person so chooses to then they may indeed act in that manner, or if the gene was passed on to everyone, whatever the cause of it. I’ll add that this is just an exercise and probability is not required of the proof but possibility is.
I also notice no one responded to my argument that just because a person feels a certain way does not mean that they should act that way? Or the point I made of the Naturalistic Fallacy in the author’s argument? It’s okay I suppose, just ignore what you cannot refute.
Comment by Kevin — 21 August 2005 @ 6:45 PM
No, these are the ethical reasonings for why these things are not allowed. If you’re going to say that homosexuality is unethical, you have to explain WHY. Comparing it to child molestation, murder, and theft makes no sense because these are all cases in which there is clearly some victim who is harmed through the perpetrator’s actions. In a relationship between two consenting homosexual adults, no one is being harmed. So how is this anything like child molestation?
Only by incredibly simple minded philosophers. In reality, the law has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. The law is there simply for the purpose of keeping the peace, not dictating morality.
First, in order for that to be true, you would have to show that homosexuality is immoral to begin with, which, so far, you haven’t done. And if you really think that allowing gay marriage will turn the entire country into a nation of flaming homosexuals, well then, you’ve got issues.
I AM a Christian.
Well, they use “one man and one woman” just as often. And regardless of the catch phrase you want to use, what they’re talking about is obvious–monogamous relationships.
Don’t remember the name, and I don’t have time to look it up right now. But if you want, I can get back to you on that later.
I really hope that was supposed to be a joke…
WHAT? Jewish Conspiracy? Are you stoned or something?
Okay, what you have to understand about the Bible is that it’s a collection of stories from several different authors. As such, the editing isn’t always that smooth. Genesis has two creation stories. God didn’t really create the world twice. They’re just two different accounts. Genesis also has Abraham tricking the Pharaoh into thinking that Sara isn’t his wife two or three times, and then Isaac comes back and does the same thing. It wasn’t a really gullible Pharaoh. They’re just different accounts of the same event.
Same thing here. These are two different accounts of what is essentially the same law. And the law has a lot more to do with preventing people from worshipping Molech than it does with actual homosexuality.
Which is about the treatment of guests, some of much greater importance to the people of ancient Palestine than homosexuality.
Yeah, I guess I just made up that whole bit in Ezekiel where it says, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
But the Bible never says that the sin of Sodom and Gemmorah was homosexuality.
Just because a situation is impossible in real life doesn’t mean it’s not still logically valid. If something is wrong if it’s bad when everybody does it, then it must be wrong to be male. It’s pretty simple, actually. As Jason points out, Hume’s reasoning is rather flawed.
Well, we actually did. But I suppose you can just ignore what you cannot refute.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 August 2005 @ 7:30 PM
Woah, heh you were typing at the same time I was on number nine and number ten. I cannot do this all day unfortunately. But I will try and respond eventually. Hopefully.
Comment by Kevin — 21 August 2005 @ 7:42 PM
And 12 apparantly, every time I refresh I get another one.
Comment by Kevin — 21 August 2005 @ 7:43 PM
Woah, one last short one, I was getting two of you confused as I saw the same I guess last name? Hopefully I’ll be able to read all this and reply in kind :). Sort of getting ready to move to Austin at the moment though (going to UT hurrah!).
Comment by Kevin — 21 August 2005 @ 7:46 PM
The purpose of marrage is to procreate. How many same sex marriages can result in children without going to an outside donor? I do realize that there are heterosexual couples who have fertility problems, but these troubles are not by God’s design. The fact is that two men cannot create a child nor can two women. In heaven there will no longer be a reason for marraige (creation of children) so marrage will not exist. As for the harm - I consider a person’s immortal soul to be a great price. God forgives us if we repent, but we must admit our transgressions. To do that you must confess the sin to God and seek His forgivness and you must know it is a sin.
Comment by Diana — 21 August 2005 @ 8:44 PM
Diana,
Just a small correction. The purpose of marraige is not to procreate. That is the purpose of sex. The purpose of marraige in many cultures is to provide financial security for one party or the other or may be used for politics as well.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 21 August 2005 @ 9:30 PM
So, for everyone else…
I had a friend who was studying to convert to Judaism. The Talmudic scholar who was teaching him came up with some interesting points. My friend explained that a couple of commonly mistranslated.
The first “Thou shalt not kill” was supposed to be “Thou shalt not murder” - the differentiation being that wartime killing, killing in the heat of passion, or killing for G-d was not expressly forbidden.
The second regards those famous Leviticus quotes. Apparently, the words for “men” and “boys” are closely related and only understandable in context. The prohibitions in Leviticus were not (according to the scholar) against homosexuality but against child molestation, specifically between men and boys