Gay marriage nowadays has become the epitome of the dead horse. As new issues cause us to revisit it, and we beat the argument’s carcass over and over with our sticks of frustration and anger as we constantly say to ourselves “Why, oh why, does the other side see it like this?”, it seems as though one stance is just as stubborn as the other. Fiery spirits on both sides pull at each other like a tug of war that will never end, and the shift in consciousness begrudgingly moves while everyone becomes blue in the face.
I realize that the argument against gay marriage is fighting a losing battle. The argument for gay marriage will win, and it is only a matter of when — if we have learned anything from the past. Time and time again, progressiveness trumps traditionalism, and interpreting the rules in the Bible are constantly transforming.
Let’s take a look, shall we?
The Bible forbids wearing clothing made from both wool and linen:
“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.” — Leviticus 19:19
Don’t shave your beards (ladies!):
“Ye shall not round the corners of your heads.” — Leviticus 19:27
I don’t think I need to explain the absurdity behind this one:
“When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand.” — Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Once Christians thought to be careful about who should read the Bible when it became readily available. This may have contributed to the 30 Years War between the Protestants and Catholics in the 17th century (notice that I say ‘may have’ because it is still argued, but the fact Christians once believed they should dictate who can read the Bible is evident). Why was it important to read the Bible when you could have learned, faithful Catholics do it for you? So that you can truly understand, through your own interpretation from knowledge you’ve gained yourself, why you believe what you believe.
Nowadays, a literal interpretation of the Bible has become obsolete. Many of the laws within the book had practical uses behind them, and they were not there just because “God said so.” Wearing clothing with wool and linen was believed unlawful because many pagans wore the same garment. Animals such as pork were prohibited to be consumed because they were seen as unclean animals, as they eat pretty much anything.
There’s a pattern. You should entertain the possibility that these laws came into existence in the first place not to preserve the sanctity of your soul, but so you don’t do something stupid like get a disease from eating bad meat, or convert to a different religion.
So what practical reason would the Bible have to say that condemns homosexuality? Beats me. There are a lot of “laws” in the Bible that don’t make much sense though. But if there is a reason out there that extends beyond the “you’ll burn in Hell if you do this,” then whatever that reason is, it would be irrelevant in today’s world.
The religious argument opposing gay marriage is an ever receding tide. A hundred years from now, Christians may be arguing about why this or that shouldn’t be allowed, but it won’t be about gay marriage. Traditional, religious views will evaporate and the opposing side will conquer.
Now. On to the main point. I by no means believe there is anything inherently wrong with being Christian. Humanity should be allowed to practice whatever the hell they want, be it Christianity, Islam, or otherwise. What I do find messed up about today’s hot topic issue is that a religious body is trying to dictate the laws in a country that was founded upon the basis that you can believe whatever the hell you want. When a Christian uses Christian logic to decide how a non-Christian should live in a country without an official religion, I think of this:
Women should wear burqas because the Muslims say so.
Photo taken from http://www.loosenessofassociation.com
I am not saying there is anything wrong with wearing a burqa, but if the Islamic culture tried to force Christians to abide by this law, in this country, I would see something wrong with that. You can be a Christian and think gay marriage is bad, whatever, but don’t use your faith as a justification when it involves people who don’t share that faith.
Christians will use the argument that marriage is a tradition of their culture, so therefore they should be the ones in charge of how that tradition is practiced. I can find credence in that argument.
Wait, no I can’t.
Separation between Church and State is something else this country is founded upon, so as a loophole, Christians argue that gays can get married in a legal sense of the union, but not the religious. This is what is known as a domestic partnership. Give them the rights (though rarely do they ever get all of them), but not the title. After all, they see homosexuality as a sin. It says so in the Bible:
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
I counter that logic with this quote:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:1-3
(One of the ten commandments, no less.)
Why aren’t Christians outlawing the ability to marry for all non-Christians? Why shouldn’t they fall under the umbrella of domestic partnership? Why make an exception for one and not the other? To a Christian, a sin is a sin, and if practicing said sin bars one from joining in a union of holy matrimony, it should be all or nothing. Otherwise the argument holds no weight.
Right around now, Christians will use the common “slippery slope” fallacy. They say that yes, it was wrong of us in the past to not allow non-Christians to marry, but no matter what nationality or religion they follow, it is still a marriage between a man and a woman. That is what’s “natural,” after all. Allowing same gender couples to marry is so beyond the radar of what’s normal, and the simple fact they cannot reproduce is evidence enough that it isn’t “natural” for humans to couple like this. If we allow same genders to marry, then who’s to stop adults from marrying children, animals, etcetera?
Other animals (black swans, giraffes, bison, bonobos, blah blah blah. The list is long, trust me) are known to practice homosexual behavior. So yes, homosexuality in humans can be considered natural.
Nowadays, people can agree that believing blacks shouldn’t marry whites is pretty messed up. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that there were so many people, back then, who believed this. So what happened? Why did people believe this, and how are so many of them gone today? It was because of a shift in consciousness. It had nothing to do with what is inherently good or bad, but because their peers, an ever growing number of people who decided “Yes, blacks and whites should marry,” convinced them the error of their ways.
People find strength in numbers. In a parallel universe, if I was immersed in a heavy Christian society from birth, I’m fairly certain I’d be singing a very different tune about gay marriage today. It has nothing to do with whether the issue is inherently right or wrong, but because I grew up believing its wrong.
This is why I believe so many Christians oppose gay marriage. It isn’t because it is wrong, but because it goes against what they’ve been told is right. Once a proper push in the shift in consciousness happens, they’ll understand why barring same sex couples from being married is wrong. All they’re doing is keeping people from being happy.
I could say so much more, write so much more, but I’m tired. The fight for equality, at least among more personal relationships among common people, is just that. A fight. A bitter, tiring fight between two schools of thought that are both kicking and screaming. I’ll leave off with what I’ve already gathered and deem myself satisfied for now.
In the end, the reason I’m so fired up about this is because people need to approach this argument more intelligently. Christians are using Christian logic to argue their point, and non-Christians are using non-Christian logic to argue theirs. We aren’t going to get anywhere doing that. Earlier, I mentioned the trending fallacies behind Christian laws. I’ve pulled quotes from the Bible, a book I don’t believe in, to explain why the Christian stance in gay marriage is faulty logic. What little I’ve touched on can be taken much further if need be. If I can come to your home court and use your reasoning to explain why you’re in the wrong, then you should be able to come to my side of the court and show me what’s what. Otherwise, I will never respect your side of the argument.