Many of the arguments I've heard in class and elsewhere I’m coming to conclude are completely twisted and invalid, on both sides. First, I’d like to comment on Sodom and Gomorrah and using religious scripture as a basis for argument. Then I’d like to explore oppression experienced by gay and other minority groups. I’ll touch on what seems to be the Gay movement’s agenda and finally, I’ll close with showing that all arguments on the topic are invalid based on the foundation of each argument.
On the topic of Sodom and Gomorrah, scholars such as Comstock (1991), identifies eight possible references to the disapproval of homosexuality in Judeo-Christian scripture but there are debates among scholars about whether all of these scriptures are actually talking about homosexuality, or if they’re talking about some other subject (Diversity/Oppression, p. 183). Leviticus is considered to be the most clear, but the argument is then said that those verses were actually added to the Bible in 1946 (Diversity/Oppression, p. 184). I think that it is difficult to make any argument about homosexuality using the bible or other scriptures because there are at least 15 translations of the Bible and often 2-3+ interpretations of a single verse. Does Comstock account for the several versions of scripture, or is he using only a couple of the dominant translations to “prove” his point? In the movie Kip showed in class, it even mentioned that Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t even exist anyway, which is ironic after it just argued that Sodom and Gomorrah was about Hospitality and not Homosexuality. Secondly, the Leviticus scripture was referring to the Mosaic Law, which no longer applies. In Judeo-Christian religion, God established a higher law at his first coming, and the Mosaic Law was no longer in effect. The American nation was created first and foremost so that the citizens could exercise their freedom of religion and worship. The country was therefore established so that those religions, which were already being practiced in the United States, could be continued without disruption from the government. After 230 years, we are now a nation that is voting on Gay rights vs. freedom of religion, and it can be agreed on that we are standing on very dangerous ground.
I admire gay people for putting up with all the rude comments, violence, and oppression that they receive on a regular basis - especially when it comes to things like getting fired from a job for being gay, because their orientation had nothing to do with their job performance. A lot of oppression and discrimination may come from Judeo-Christian believers who use the scripture to condemn and hate the “sinner,” and therefore justify their discrimination and violence against them (Diversity/Oppression, p. 183). But in doing so, they show they do not understand and live their religion in other ways, such as the belief that God is the judge of mortals and not other mortals, and they seek to judge and cast stones at others, despite the sin they, themselves, are guilty of in other areas of their life (adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc. which also had the same punishment as homosexuality in the mosaic law).
Religious saints and homosexuals seem to go head to head in this debate – but in many ways, I think they are suffering from a portion of the very same oppression… and don’t kill me for saying this. Hate crimes are committed against homosexuals such as the time when a student at the University of Wyoming was hung for their (perceived or factual) sexual orientation… verses the Columbine shootings where hate crimes were committed against admitting Christian believers. Both homosexuals and Jews were slaughtered in Nazi concentration camps (Diversity/Oppression, p. 192). There have been a number of San Francisco riots having to do with hatred toward homosexuals and the Christian-based LDS church was massacred in Missouri in the early 1800’s for their non-traditional Christian beliefs. Shortly before those massacres suffered by the LDS saints, they petitioned the government for support and protection against the Missouri mobs, and received no support… much like the gay community is receiving little or no support from our current government and social institutions. As the debate of gay rights vs. freedom of religion continues, individual acts of hate and rudeness go both ways.
What baffles me the most is that Gays push that all people should accept their homosexual behavior as part of who they are, and be accepting of their lifestyle and choices. But as social workers, if a client comes into our office that has problems with drinking and driving, we’re not required to accept their drunken behavior and choice to drive under such conditions as a part of who they are and be acceptable of that behavior and that lifestyle. We are required to be objective and pass no judgment, except to accomplish the goals of that meeting set forth by a collaborative effort between client and worker. So why must the world accept gay behavior as an acceptable and correct way to live? And vice versa, why should non-denominate citizens be made to feel they cannot live their lifestyles how they please because of dominant religious values which the majority of gays do not share?
I think this argument could go on and on, but I don’t think the argument is even valid anyway. Gays and supporters are fighting on a logical and legal standpoint, while conservatives are fighting on a moral and religious one. But who defines morals? And who defines what is logical? All can be argued, all can be “logically” deconstructed (or rationalized) but no answer can be made when you’re fighting from different planes of reasoning. Science has “proof” on both sides and therefore cannot completely back up one side or the other. Therefore, all arguments can be dismissed.
