I
grew up Methodist. I thought for a while that the Church would allow
gay-marriages or blessed unions depending on the legality of the state. My
parents' pastor is very into gay rights and even holds a support group in a
small town in America (scary). If there were a god I would hope it is
his. He is a man of peace, concerned for the poor, and a supporter of a more
loving world.
It
is a commonly held belief that gay-marriage is an infringement on religious
liberty, which is a ridiculous statement that does not even hold up on first glance.
Freedom of Association will allow individual churches the right to perform
marriage and exclude gays if it is counter to their core beliefs. Many churches
and religions outside of Christianity hold that having sex outside of marriage
to be a sin while no longer holding homosexuality to be an inherent sin. By
barring gay-marriage, Conservatives are pushing gays to choose either a life of
abstinence or a life sin in the eye of their religion. The possibly for
Christianity to accept homosexuality, and gay-marriage as a consequence, is
quite likely. While the Old Testament has a prohibition on homosexuality, the
Gospel does not. In fact, the New Testament mentions the word 'Love' 179 times,
while it mentions 'Hate' only 16 times, and 'Homosexuality' 0 times. In fact some Christian sects such the ELCA, individual UCC congregations, Anglican Church, not to mention the Reform Movement in Judaism, and various sects of Buddhism and Hinduism all accept Homosexuality. Many other Christian sects are divided on the issue.
If
gay-marriage were actually accepted by the Methodist Church would it be an
infringement of my religion to prohibit gay-marriage? Legally, based on past
precedence as shown in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145
(1878), gay-marriage wouldn't be protected on the grounds of freedom of
religion; however, under the logic of Loving, gay-marriage should be
protected under the Equal Protection Clause. As a logical argument, preventing
gay-marriage would be an infringement of my religion as it prevents me from
completing a religious sacrament. Furthermore allowing gay-marriage in no way
interferes with anyone-else's rights.
The
other common argument I hear against gay-marriage is that it will alter 3,000
years of marriage tradition. This is not a straw-man argument, Mitt Romney
actually said that. What is traditional marriage?
According
to this Princeton Article and this Independent Article 1/6 of societies practice
legal monogamy currently. Legal monogamy was a rarity during antiquity
and even more so in prior eras. Most Christians should understand this, because
Judaism of course was historically polygamous. And the Greco-Roman tradition of
man on man rumpus wasn't lost to the ages. It wasn't until the merger of Christianity
and the Roman Empire that lead to an ascetic marriage tradition. I do have to
say though that I'm disappointing with history, and the fact that we didn't end
up with a system of polygamous gay-marriage. I think we were kind of close to
that possibility.
And
once this system of marriage was created, it looked very different from
the nuclear family of today. Forced marriages were common place until the
19th Century. I really don't think anyone wants to go back to that tradition.
So if it isn't tradition or religious liberty, what else is there? Many people have a problem with the gay identity, and how the gayness is the only aspect of gay people's lives. The way I see it, gay people do not want to be identified as being gay. They are simply people who happen to be attracted to men. Why is that evil? Where is the logic behind the morality? With the boom in human population, mass starvation (yes people really are starving), and other population related issues, perhaps we should encourage gay people to live as gay (as opposed to living a miserable closeted life and having a family that will one day suffer the consequences.)
So if it isn't tradition or religious liberty, what else is there? Many people have a problem with the gay identity, and how the gayness is the only aspect of gay people's lives. The way I see it, gay people do not want to be identified as being gay. They are simply people who happen to be attracted to men. Why is that evil? Where is the logic behind the morality? With the boom in human population, mass starvation (yes people really are starving), and other population related issues, perhaps we should encourage gay people to live as gay (as opposed to living a miserable closeted life and having a family that will one day suffer the consequences.)
Believe
it or not, logically gay people have more to gain than the heterosexual
community has to lose by granting gay rights. In marriage, gays would gain a
whole host of financial, mutual-property, and other legal rights that straight
couples enjoy. More marriage is not about having children (which, unfortunately
for a certain writer, many gay couples wish to have) but more is a contract for
living together and preparing to be divorced. Seriously a lot of the marriage
laws are about merger of property, division of property, inheritance, and other
depressing aspects of life.
If
it weren't for the history of bigotry and hatred there wouldn't really even be
a gay culture. If it weren't for being forced into gay neighborhoods, if it
weren't for lynchings and murders, if it weren't for the fear of losing one’s
job due to outing, if it weren't for the bigotry, gay people wouldn't have
formed a separate culture, and they would simply be people.
Liam '12
Freedom Just For Me
No comments:
Post a Comment