I’m tired of reiterating the same points across multiple posts and blogs, so I will compile my statements in one area. Feel free to discuss or disagree, but please use critical thinking and post intelligently.
1) Christianity does not define marriage. Nowhere in the Bible is the word “marriage” defined. Although the Bible does define several acceptable unions between two or more people according to Abrahamic law, “marriage” is not the word used in the original text.
2) Unions between two people have been practiced since long before the Abrahamic religions. The word “marriage” finds its origin in Ancient Rome and several Latin terms (such as marītus and mātrimōnium) and was used to represent a variety of unions. According to studies of Ancient Roman culture, most marriages were secular; they were unions performed as legal contracts for a variety of reasons (breeding, politics, etc.). Although most marriages were between man and woman, there were exceptions, including marriages of Heads of State to their male lovers that used all the pomp and ritual of any other marriage.
3) Christianity does not hold sole ownership or usage of the word “marriage”. The term is used globally in English translations of unions from almost every culture and religion. English-speaking governments recognize unions in non-Abrahamic faiths without concern or care for their individual definitions of the union. Considering that the combined populations of Hindus, Buddhists, European Pagans, and the indigenous faiths of all the Continents outnumber Christians this suggests that Christians are not the majority and do not get the “vote” on what marriage is.
4) The government does not define “marriage” in a religious form; it is forbidden from doing so by the Constitution. A Christian marriage is no different from a Hindu marriage, a Wiccan marriage, a Universalist Unitarian marriage, or a non-religious marriage. The government’s definition of marriage, in keeping with the origins of Western society, is simply a legal contract that provides benefits for those who have signed it. For the government to define marriage solely by a select group of Christians (not even representative of every Christian in the US, let alone the world) would be illegal according to the laws of this country.
5) There is no evidence that homosexual practices lead to the destruction of society. Many ancient cultures, at some point in their history, accepted homosexual or bisexual behavior without it being a contributing factor to their downfall. Even to this day there are indigenous cultures that accept these same practices as has been part of their tradition since long before the presence of Westerners.
6) There is no evidence that homosexual practices directly cause negative effects in the individuals involved. Studies of the psychosocial health of homosexual individuals have shown a high correlation with stress, depression, suicidal tendencies, and a variety of psychological disorders. However, correlation is not causation and the larger context must be understood. In a society that is hostile to LGBT individuals, where abuse, oppression, and even assault occurs, it would be completely understandable why members of this minority group experience these negative psychosocial effects. Is it moral, ethical, or just to blame the victim for their state and ignore the perpetrator?
7) There is no evidence that homosexual parents negatively affect their children’s development. The last major study (by Mark Regnerus from the University of Texas) was severely criticized because the sample population was almost solely children of previously heterosexual divorced parents who later entered homosexual relationships. A child from a broken home (of any kind) is going to show a higher rate of negative psychosocial factors than those who grow up in a consistent and stable home (of any kind).
8) There is evidence that homosexual tendencies are an inherent trait rather than learned behavior. Although Dean Hamer’s “gay gene” study has been criticized, repeat studies of twins and homosexual behaviors has shown that heritability is a factor. Even more-so, repeat studies of the general population show that, although strictly homosexual individuals are a minority, bisexual thoughts are far more prevalent than expected. What this means to me is that the concept that homosexuality or bisexuality is “unnatural” and that the behavior is solely learned is a fallacious statement at best.
- If Christianity does not define or own the term “marriage” (which it does not)
- If government recognition of marriage is secular and does not support any given faith (which is true)
- If homosexuality does not directly harm society, the individuals, or any children they raise (which it has been proven not to)
- If sexual orientation and/or gender identity are likely inherent traits rather than learned (which modern science suggests is the case)
…then the only logical conclusion is to let people be who they are and enjoy the same benefits as everyone else. This is not only a moral and ethical conclusion, but a legal one as well as the laws of this country prevent discrimination and do not support a “separate but equal” mentality.