They include many dietary, sanitary and other laws. A consensus exists among liberal and mainline Christian theologians, pastors and teleministers that the Holiness Code is no longer applicable for today's Christians. Conservative Christians generally agree; however, they still want to retain the two elements of the Code which appear to prohibit male homosexuality.
We have been unable to find a justification for the rejection of most of the laws, while retaining these 2. The Hebrew word to'ebah is often translated "abomination" in English. This is a poor translation; "ritually unclean" would be better. An ancient Israelite eating a meal with a non-Jew is to'ebah. Eating eating a cheeseburger is also to'ebah. In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, " There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel " Deuteronomy The whore and the sodomite are in the same category.
Strauss is here quoting the King James Version of the Bible. The translation is in error. The verse does not refer to female hookers and male homosexuals. The New International Version correctly translates this passage as: Same-sex activity is not mentioned. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known.
Let us look at the passages in question:. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse Genesis 4: The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear.
Lot pled with the men to " do not so wickedly. A liberal Christian might reflect on Dr. Strauss' comment as follows: A man does not "give himself to homosexuality. Strauss apparently believed that everyone is a heterosexual, but that some engage in wicked homosexual acts. This was certainly the belief of the authors of the Bible. Society now realizes what homosexuals have known forever: Strauss refers to homosexuality as a "perverted and unnatural vice.
It is a practice that is against their sexual nature and identity. But one can argue with equal validity that heterosexuality is a "perverted and unnatural vice" for homosexuals.
In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity - always heterosexual. In the remaining approximately occurrences, it refers to non-sexual knowing. It is unclear whether the "knowing" refers to a sexual act. References in Isaiah 1 , Jeremiah Sexual matters were not even mentioned. Jude 7 refers to their lust for "sarkos heteras" Greek for "other flesh". This apparently refers to the men of Sodom wanting to engage in sexual activities with angels.
Angels are a species that is not human. Their sin would be that of bestiality. You said that sexua1 intercourse outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible.
How do you explain marriage ceremonies in which two persons of the same sex are united by an officiating clergyman or justice of the peace? There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk's office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively.
The two men are reported to have "married" in a private ceremony. However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a " marriage " is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose among others of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions Genesis 1: If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today.
The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't. Strauss gives a religious definition of a marriage. But marriage is much more than a religious ceremony; it has civil aspects.
It brings over economic and security privileges to the spouses. Many people feel that it "is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, [and] stupid" to deny two people in a committed relationship the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage simply because they are of the same gender.
Some lesbians seek marriage so that they can raise their own children; some gay males seek marriage with the goal of forming a family and adopting one or more children. Strauss would seem to imply that a marriage between a man and woman is invalid if either of the spouses is infertile. That is an insult to many millions of heterosexual couples. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference Christianity Today, June 3, , " There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible.
This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behavior in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.
However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among Protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term " The New Morality ," which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as " a kind of holy communion.
It is blasphemous and atheistic. Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, " Gay and Christian. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian.
Calling one's self a Christian does not make one a Christian. Only recently he made a public announcement of his homosexuality. He claims that his public announcement of his homosexuality has brought him back to the church. Boyd does not tell us what he means by the " church "! Following is one point on which the speakers at Kirkbridge agreed: Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it.
A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God's revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity " II Timothy 2: Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.
Strauss' comment about Roman Catholic priests appears to imply that all priests who support equal rights for gays and lesbians are themselves active homosexuals. He states that a real Christian cannot be a practicing homosexual.
He says that homosexuals engage in a "divinely forbidden evil. However, liberal Christians sometimes point out that the Bible, in its original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, condemned homosexual rape, homosexual prostitution, homosexual sex rituals in Pagan temples, men sexually abusing boys, etc.
But on the topic of consensual homosexual activity within a committed, same-sex relationship, the Bible is silent. Why do homosexuals refer to themselves as "gay"? The word " gay " means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word " gay " by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word.
I never use the word " gay " when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts. The English language is in constant change.
Words change in meanings, sometimes within the period of a few months. This is not a process of corruption; it is one of evolution. Strauss, and many other conservative Christians believe that any sexual act between persons of the same gender is a perversion. One can understand his point of view. He was presumably a heterosexual. And to a person with that sexual orientation, any homosexual act is difficult to understand and is probably personally repulsive.
However, to a homosexual, it is a heterosexual act is difficult to understand and personally repulsive. Strauss has taken his own personal reaction to homosexuality and expanded it into an absolute.
You made reference to First Corinthians 6: What is the meaning of the word " effeminate " in verse 9? There are certain words in every language that can be used in a good or bad sense. In the context of this verse the use of " effeminate " is obviously in a bad sense. It is listed among other evils which are condemned. It describes feminine qualities inappropriate to a man. It is normal and natural for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man; it is abnormal and unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man.
Many male homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. Nor are all lesbians unduly masculine. As described above, the word "effeminate" was selected by a few Bible translators because the meaning of the original Greek is unknown. Many liberal Christians feel that it is an invalid translation, and that the original Greek probably referred to men who sexually abused young boys. Are there other Scriptures in the New Testament which deal with homosexuality? If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil.
The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of " the truth of God " 1: They refused " to retain God in their knowledge " 1: The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul's day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God's commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.
The philosophy of substituting God's Word with one's own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God's orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil Genesis 3: That was Satan's big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God's truth, his mind becomes " reprobate ," meaning perverted, void of sound judgment.
The perverted mind, having rejected God's truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil. Paul wrote, " For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet " Romans 1: These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing.
Notice that the behavior of the homosexual is described as a " vile affection " 1: The Greek word translated " vile " atimia means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonorable. The word " affection " in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The " vile affection " is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire lusting after and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.
Liberal Christians might conclude that in Romans 1: Paul was condemning that activities of some former Christians who reverted to Pagan beliefs and practices, engaged in idolatry, engaged in casual group sex, both heterosexual and homosexual. It would appear that this passage condemns Pagan worship and group sex. It certainly has nothing to say about consensual sexual activity between two individuals in a committed, permanent relationship, whether gay or straight.
It would seem to refer to adult males who sexually abuse children. As noted above, Jude 7 appears to refer to bestiality sex between two species , not to homosexual activity. There are those persons who say that homosexuality, even though a perverted form of the normal, God-ordained practice of sex, is a genetic problem, constitutionally inherited. Is there evidence to support this view? I read in a periodical that in June, a panel of specialists in medicine, psychiatry, law, sociology and theology participated in a conference on homosexuality called by the Swiss Evangelical Church Union.
That group reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not constitutionally inherited, it is not a part of one's genetic makeup. The ill-founded and unverifiable myth that homosexuality results from genetic causes is gradually fading away. One would expect that a panel convened by a conservative Church group almost four decades ago would reach that conclusion. Since , studies have revealed the true nature of homosexuality. There are possibly a number of different ways in which homosexual practices could begin.
When boys and girls reach puberty and the genital organs develop, it is not uncommon for boys to experiment with boys, and girls with girls. In prisons where men and women are denied access to persons of the opposite sex for long periods of time, some are introduced to homosexuality for the first time.
A young Christian woman came to our office in Detroit for counseling. She became involved in lesbianism when her marriage began to fail.
She was introduced to her first homosexual experience by a divorcee who was her neighbor. After six months of practicing lesbianism she was convicted of her sin and sought help. We were able to show her from the Bible that she was sinning and that God stood ready and willing to forgive and cleanse her.
She confessed and forsook her sin, and continues to this day to live a happy, normal Christian life. Studies have indicated that children who will become gay adults can be detected before the age of 5. It is apparent that sexual orientation is determined in early childhood. The woman in Detroit may have been a bisexual woman, not a lesbian.
She was apparently able to switch from a male sexual partner to a female partner and perhaps back again without difficulty. Homosexuality must be accepted for what God says it is-- sin. Some homosexuals will attempt to circumvent the plain teaching of the Bible with the insipid reply that they are the way God made them.
There is not the slightest bit of evidence in Scripture to support this false concept. God never created man with a so-called "homosexual need. Every baby is born male or female. In every place the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The practicing homosexual is guilty of " leaving the natural use of the woman " Romans 1: Inasmuch as homosexuality is opposed to the regular law and order of nature, the genetic concept must be ruled out completely.
If homosexuality were a genetic problem, there would be little hope for the homosexual simply because there is no way that the genes in a person can be changed. The Bible contains almost no material at all on genetics, or locomotives, or airplanes.
So one would not necessarily expect its authors to talk much about the need by some people to engage in consensual, homosexual activities. The Bible condemns homosexual rape, homosexual prostitution, homosexual Pagan temple activities, casual, group homosexual sex, and raping of boys by adult men.
But the Bible also condemns these same activities when done by heterosexuals. The Bible does not condemn sexual activities between committed gays or lesbians. Are there contributing factors to homosexuality for which a homosexual might not be responsible? Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship.
For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man.
Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him.
Before the boy's contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy. Lesbianism has been known to follow this same pattern. Some mother-daughter relationships are not conducive to a normal social and sexual development. One young woman came to her pastor seeking help. She had gotten involved with a lesbian in the community where she lived, a woman twenty-one years her senior. The girl's parents had a defective marriage which ended in divorce when the daughter was ten years old.
Her mother became bitter and resentful against all men. She convinced her daughter that men were not to be trusted, and that man's one goal was to exploit women sexually. The daughter grew up with a fear of men, a fear totally unwarranted. She was an easy victim of the seductive older lesbian. The good and wise pastor showed the counselee from the Bible that homosexuality was sinful and that God condemned it.
Today she is happily married to a fine Christian man. It is certainly true that some gays and lesbians are the product of terrible parenting. And some homosexuals were seduced by members of the same sex as children. But many heterosexual adults have the same factors in their background.
Researchers into human sexuality at least those who are not Evangelical Christians have reached a consensus that the quality of parenting is completely unrelated to adult sexual orientation.
Do you believe that the homosexual controversy is causing problems for the churches of America? The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well , and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after.
Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive.
Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy much the same as in the States. A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays.
Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics including the Mormon and Catholic churches among others have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole.
So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it.
It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken.
Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers. If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc.
Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.
Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent?
Evans , many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special.
That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will. This one has absolutely no basis in law whatever, existing or proposed. There are many marriages to which many churches object, such as interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, the marriage of divorcees, etc. The right granted by the state to a church to perform marriages is a right, not a requirement, and to pretend that it would be a requirement in the case of gays, but not in the above examples, is disingenuous on the face of it.
If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and many foreign countries, including Canada, but can anyone point to an example of homosexuality being promoted in the public schools?
Because it hasn't happened in any significant way. What is being objected to is tolerance of gays, not genuine promotion of homosexuality. And if tolerance itself is not acceptable, what is the absence of tolerance?
If we do not promote tolerance in the public schools, we are accepting that bigotry has a place there. Is this really what we want? Gay marriage and its associated promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization. Homosexuality is as old as civilization itself, and has always been a part of civilization, including this one - indeed, cross-cultural studies indicate that the percentage of homosexuals in a population is independent of culture.
So even if promotion of homosexuality were to occur, it wouldn't change anything - people aren't gay because they were "recruited," they're gay because they were born that way, as the population statistics across cultures makes clear. As for gay marriage itself undermining western civilization, it is hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and commonality of values and goals isn't going to strengthen civilization a lot sooner than it is going to undermine it.
Gay marriage has been legal, in various forms, in parts of Europe for more than twenty years, and in Canada and many states in the United States for some time now, but can anyone point to any credible evidence that gay marriage itself is leading to the crumbling of western civilization?
If they can, it certainly hasn't been presented to me. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. There are several problems with this argument, the first of which is that it presumes that sexual orientation is a choice. This lie is promoted so endlessly by bigoted religious leaders that it has become accepted as fact by society as a whole, and it was advanced, beginning in the 's, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement.
But the reality is that a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 's and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively - beyond any reasonable doubt - that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so.
That homosexuality is congenital, inborn, and has a strong genetic component. In other words, if you're gay, you're gay and there is little that you do about it, regardless of the endless propaganda to the contrary. This is a qualitative argument with whom many gay people - and many thinking straight people as well, both religious and secular - would take issue. A third problem is that this argument presumes that someone else has the right to veto your presumed choice sexual orientation on the basis that they are not comfortable with the choice you have made.
It is difficult for me to see how any religionist or anti-gay bigot, however sincere and well-meaning, has the right to arrogate to himself that veto power. Or, frankly, why a homosexual should be forced to go out of his way to make bigots comfortable with their bigotry. A fourth, legalistic problem with this argument is that it presumes that if the choice of sexual orientation can be made, the voluntary nature of that choice removes any and all right to the protection of the law for the choice which has been made.
But I would point out that the First Amendment to the United States constitution protects, by constitutional fiat itself, a purely voluntary choice - that of religion. So if it is acceptable to argue that unpopular sexual minorities have no right to equal protection of the law because they can avoid disadvantage or persecution by voluntarily changing the choice they have presumably made, then it is equally true that the First Amendment should not include protection for choice in religion, because no rational person could argue that religious belief is itself not a choice.
In other words, this is like arguing that you should not expect legal protection from being persecuted because you are a Mormon or a Catholic; the solution to such disadvantage or persecution is simple: I have never, ever seen a religious opponent of homosexuality who is asserting that homosexuality is a choice, advance that last point with regards to religion - a fact which very glaringly demonstrates the clearly bigoted character of this argument.
The real reasons people oppose gay marriage So far, we've examined the reasons everyone give for opposing gay marriage. Let's examine now the real reasons people oppose it, even fear it: Just not comfortable with the idea.
The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is neccessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority.
But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. It offends everything religion stands for. Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs.
Lewin trial in Hawaii , the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them , and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry.
That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that sanctity. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights.
Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion anyway.
Even if one accepts the presumption of the United States as a bible-believing, Christian nation as an acceptable legal doctrine, as many conservative Christians insist, and the bible should be the basis for the sacred institution of marriage, perhaps those Christians should get out their bibles and actually read them for a change.
Including all the inconvenient passages that not only permit but can even require polygamy, involuntary marriage and the like. How about Deuteronomy Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. Throughout Israel his family will be known as 'the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.
If the Christian is going to say, well, that's old, quaint and should no longer be expected to apply, well, then, that's exactly the point! The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is high time we recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it.
Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress. Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least of those species.
It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners. The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it.
The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species. A man making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known and dated plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you.
There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries exist, detailing their relationships.
Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay. Indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man.
Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other?
Why is that so wrong? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based. Should any form of that love for one another be discouraged? The base fear here is that of rape and a loss of control or loss of masculine status.
This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump.
This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate. It has been suggested that homophobia is an instinctual fear of being raped by someone that the homophobe regards as lower than him in status.
And the notion that a gay man might rape him is an instinctual fear. This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Prison rape is not an act of sex as much as it is an assertion of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to promiscuous heterosexual sex once they're on the outside. So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, relax, all you straight guys.
You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting you do as a straight man with a woman - as a part of the expression of love, affection and commitment. We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you do - the love and affection of a partner.
Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us and it's a very small minority who enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored.
The thought of gay sex is repulsive. This is the so-called "ick factor. But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work the other way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway. Prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that most virulent, even violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions.
One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex.
The fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia is as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.
The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed to any significant degree. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these therapies have never shown any significant results, and usually create psychological damage in the process, which is why they are uniformly condemned by mental health professional associations.
So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is quite unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might be. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws. Because it would be hard to justify, before a court, allowing a couple to marry and then legally bar them from having sexual relations, many conservative religionists privately oppose gay marriage in part because it would undermine the legal basis for sodomy laws, which, even though they have been struck down as unconstitutional by the U.
Supreme Court Lawrence vs. Texas , they are still dreamed of by those who would seek to legalize discrimination against gays - and are occasionally still enforced in some states, in spite of the fact that the laws have been invalidated and doing so is quite illegal and opens the state to civil lawsuit.
In several states, gays convicted under these invalidated laws are even still being required to register as sex offenders. Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality. This presumes that homosexuality is something other than simply a normal variation of human development.
The reality is that every mental health association has recognized that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variation on how humans develop, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from science that there are sound reasons why it has evolved, and why it is not selected against in evolutionary pressure. It is not perverted, it does not degrade human culture, it is not a threat to humankind in any way.
All those stereotypes, long cultivated by homophobes and religious bigots, have been disproven both by experience and by scientific research, but that does not prevent the homophobe from holding to them dearly. And allowing state sanction in the form of marriage, threatens the stereotype by undermining the justification for it.
At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life.
It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general. The Anti-Gay-Marriage Propaganda Effort The Players That the organized opposition to gay marriage is primarily from groups with an obvious homophobic agenda should be self evident if one looks at who they are and what they are doing outside of the arena of the gay marriage debate.
That many of them call themselves "Christian" does not, in any way, relieve them of the responsibility for the fact that preaching hate is still preaching hate, even when the hate is dressed up in the form of religious doctrine.
Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it any less a pig. These are some of the most respected religious organizations in the United States. Other players were the usual suspects, the Catholic church, several of the more conservative Protestant denominations, the American Family Association, Focus On The Family, their various political subsidiary groups, and a whole host of smaller right-wing political and religious organizations, including a few out-right hate groups.
The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a "hate group" watch on many of these groups. The Tactics What these groups do, persistently, is to try desperately to legitimize what is clearly a campaign of hatred, fear and disinformation. The people of California saw that recently, when the campaign for Proposition 8 used just that tactic relentlessly, for months on end, spending millions of dollars in the process. Eventually the fear and disinformation campaign took its toll, emotion overtook reason, the majority in favor of gay marriage slowly eroded, and the proposition passed rather narrowly.
Hatred by itself, dressed up as religious dogma has been used for so long that it is beginning to lose its effectiveness eventually people begin to figure out that it is mostly a tactic for filling pews, collection plates and campaign coffers more than it is a way of reforming lost souls and improving society , so the more clever of these organizations have begun to move onto a slick propaganda effort based on that long-time favorite argument-winner - fear.
Of course, the all time favorite among those fearmongering tactics is that logical fallacy called the slippery-slope argument, described briefly above. One sees the slippery-slope fallacy in almost every one of their arguments, because they have few logically sound arguments to which to resort. Take, for example, one of the most popular anti-gay-marriage web sites out there, one so frequently clicked-on that it frequently comes to the top of Google results, the "Ten Arguments" page at nogaymarriage.
This web site is operated by the notorious American Family Association, run by Donald Wildmon, and one need only read that organization's Wikipedia entry in its entirety to understand just what kind of organization is behind this page. Among those "ten arguments," the slippery-slope fallacy often more than one can be seen clearly in every one of the ten. But for every slippery slope argument that Wildmon's organization has identified here, there is not a shred of verifiable evidence given for even a single one.
That is a clear demonstration of just how logically fallacious those arguments are - no evidence, just disinformation, just fearmongering. Gay marriage has been a reality for two decades in Denmark, nearly as long in one form or another in several other Scandinavian countries, and for several years now in Canada, and in the form of civil unions, and more recently, full-on gay marriage itself in several states in the United States.
Can anyone point to civilization collapsing as was alleged would happen in the recent Proposition 8 campaign in California or students being taught gay sex in the public schools another frequent allegation from that campaign?
If twenty years of gay marriage in Denmark has not brought about the collapse of civilization in that country indeed, it remains higher on the United Nations Development Index than does the United States , I doubt that the collapse of civilization will be brought on in the United States by a couple of dudes saying "I do" - but that simple reality doesn't stop the argument from being made.
Fear has long been used to neuter reason, and, well applied, it does so reliably - so all one has to do to nullify a logical argument is to instill fear. As for any of the other arguments raised against gay marriage, an examination of what has happened during the last twenty years in that country and other Scandinavian countries that followed suit shortly thereafter, will show that the fears are misplaced and the slippery slope so often fearmongered, remains remarkably ungreased.
The easiest way to counter the slippery-slope fallacy is to simply point out that gay marriage has been tried in many places in the world for many years, including the United States itself, and none of the dire effects insistently predicted have yet to occur in any of those locations to any significant degree. The Strategy The anti-gay-marriage campaigners have recently been losing in the courts with increasing frequency.
It isn't difficult to understand why. It is hard to argue that gays, unable to access the dozens of rights of marriage available to straights as identified by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii , have equal protection of the law, when they clearly do not under any reasonable standard of logic, and so the courts have been ruling that the 14th Amendment to the U.
As a result, the anti-crowd has been losing in the courts. Simply putting a measure on the ballot, or getting a law through the legislature to overturn such decisions has not worked, because they run afoul of state constitution requirement for equal treatment under the law, and are therefore promptly struck down again.
Anti Gay Marriage essays Gay marriage should not be permitted. Many people often justify their opposition to gay marriage with reference to their religious beliefs. It rejects natural law created by God. The bible says that lesbian and gay parenting is a sin. Homosexual couples can not procreate.
This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. What are the reasons for and against gay marriage.
Anti gay marriage essays, - Maharashtra mba cet mock test papers. Your order will be assigned to a competent writer who specializes in your field of study. Analysis of a Religiously-based Anti-gay Essay. Sponsored link. His essay is in the form of a series of questions (Q) and answers (A). some gay males seek marriage with the goal of forming a family and adopting one or more children.
An essay on why the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up in the light of reason. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup. Anti gay marriage essay - Use this service to get your valid paper delivered on time diversify the way you cope with your homework with our professional service Use from our cheap custom dissertation writing service and benefit from great quality.