a rebuttal
*this is an old post i pulled from my myspace page, to give you all something to read :)
This is a blog that was started before St. Patricks and i just had the time to complete it. Please take a minute to read the article i'm countering www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/archives/3.14.04-3.20.04.htm - scroll to Reflection: The Fly, Spider-Man, and Gay Marriage. (I recommend ignoring his link within the article unless u would like to read some really lofty, as in yr brain needs oxygen, and totally unfounded anti-gay rhetoric)
I was searching for a St. Patty's type image to re-up my [myspace] page (which obviously didn't happen...yeah I'm a slacker) and in the process an image brought me to a page with a thread of articles by someone who was obviously, after the first few minutes of reading, a fundamentalist Christian. I took a read on Mr. Roberts argument on gay marriage which expressed concern that marriage is part of the fundamental DNA of society and as such changing its definition could either alter society for the better or worse and it was too early to tell which would happen. The article was well written, and the author was a self proclaimed Harvard grad. Though he was clearly batting for the opponents, the blog as a whole touched on both sides of the issue without being condescending and made points that though I disagree with were well reasoned. However there's always a flip side to every coin and I have it here.
First Roberts paints a picture that ultimately concludes with the statement that "When it comes to the all-important image game, gay marriage is winning hands-down." I don't know were in his ass that he pulled this out of but when I watch television or read the news by far and large gay marriage is not winning hearts and minds hands down anywhere. Court decision after court decision strikes a blow in the face of equality for all, hate crimes abound, and our own federal government constantly pushes for an amendment to ban gay marriage. Someone please explain to me how this is "winning"? If the image game was indeed that important in the arena of gay marriage then one would think it would have more public and political support. Unfortunately there is a long hard road ahead much in the way of civil rights before the minds of our stogy, backwards, bureaucratic leaders and voting public change to acceptance instead of fear. This author, however, would have readers believe that the day after tomorrow will bring blanket legislation giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couples.
Also poignant to his argument was the fact that while we see the images of happy couples married in san fran we do not see any counterbalancing images from the conservative side on the "dangers" of gay marriage such as maladjusted children, all that is on the opponents side is a theoretical argument about the detriment that legalization of same sex marriages will cause to this country. Indeed this is a fact, the problem lies in the reason the opposition has no counterbalancing images on their side is because there are none to be had (and never will be). This is along the lines of trying to find counterbalancing images of why kittens are dangerous. Their argument is totally theoretical, and much like many scientific theories has no grounding in reality, the lack of "visual or visceral" proof only serves to further substantiate this fact. These people are the modern day incarnation of those who espoused theories that freeing slaves or giving women voting rights would upset the "societal balance," it didn't happen then and it won't happen now. Oh yeah and many of those theorists also had a biblical basis for their arguments too.
I will agree on his point that the "it's no big deal" argument used by some supporters is shortsighted and undermines the significance of the change that the gay marriage movement is attempting to bring. Gay marriage is a big deal and it will totally change the face, or "DNA," of society at large...for the better. It will once again be a step closer to putting every man and woman on an equal footing. It will be no less monumentous than the end of segregation when change finally does come. To say it is no big deal is to say that gay marriage, and love, is trivial.
Concluding, Mr. Roberts, after such a well written article then descends down the only route that opponents such as himself can take, the biblical road, kicking the stand right out from under his own argument, the excerpt of which follows:
Those of us who believe that we do in fact have transcendent guidance for life don't have to engage in perilous social experimentation to know what's best for human society. The Bible has made it clear from the beginning that marriage should be between one man and one woman. We have no reason to believe that God's mind has changed in the matter. It would be truly sad if our society had to discover by experience the implications of rejecting God's design for our social DNA.
Yes the Bible has been so clear on many other things thru the centuries: slavery, interracial marriage, women's rights, and the list goes on. Oh wait that's right if we wanted to live the "Biblical" way we'd still own slaves, races wouldn't mix and women wouldn't be able to vote or work. Or lets take it one step further, almost every major medical innovation from antibiotics to stem cell research has wrought a religious backlash from groups who think we are tinkering with life, a realm supposedly out of mans reach- should we reject medicine and expect most of our life expectancies to be somewhere around 30.
God's mind indeed may not have changed but mans hand has, the Bible has been rewritten numerous times throughout its life with pieces being omitted or added on the whim of ruling parties and special interests throughout the centuries. In fact the word homosexual was not even in the Bible until the mid fifties and was used to replace an ancient Greek word that even the most renowned scholars do not know what the true meaning is. So how exactly is that the infallible word of God? How is it that the majority of American Christians use the King James Version of the Bible- should we not be using the original or at least not some fallible mans version? It's interesting how everyone wants to point to their particular version of the Bible as the infallible word of God. Not to mention that even the original Hebrew texts advocate slavery and the subservience of women, so did we ruin society's DNA by altering those pieces of "God's design?" I think not.
Referring to the legalization of gay marriage as "perilous social experiment" strikes me as funny and rather ironic. I think that it is very accurately and historically documented that the building of America from the original 13 was "perilous social experimentation." In fact in much the same way that gay marriage opponents are attempting now, England tried to end that experiment first with rhetoric and taxation and then with a little outburst know as the Revolutionary War (not to imply that there will be a war over this issue- at least not in the literal sense). This whole nation has been built on social experimentation but now it appears some feel that when it doesn't work in a way that they see fit it must be against God's will. This is a dangerous and repressive "maintain the status quo" mentality. Would u also like to see us pull all the women out of the work force and re-segregate public places too? Its just a scary thought that one day we might all be equal and these religious zealots won't have anybody to repress...creepy.
The "God forbids it" argument is the only one I ever hear from the oppositions camp, no hard evidence or facts, no logic grounded in any sort of secular way. Lets talk reality, everyone is NOT a Christian and there are probably more than a hundred different sects within Christianity alone (I could be grossly underestimating here) so who is to say that your god is the right god? And don't ignorantly believe that every other Christian is going to say "hooyah" and back you just because you start waving the Bible around. I also think that what many of these hardliners fail to understand is that our country protects their right to espouse this propaganda so how do u think this somehow affords u the power to try and oppress others. Do u like being attacked by atheist or agnostic groups?- doubtful.
The Bible or any other religious philosophy, dogma, or book is not appropriate for governing society. Yes religion has its place IN society, however it should not run it. Our forefathers realized this and thus is why we live in a democracy and not a theocracy, its a little clause commonly known as the separation of church and state. Gay marriage is about equality for all HUMAN BEINGS not a proverbial lets see who's Bible is bigger and how hard you can swing it contest. Choosing to live ones life by divine guidance is noble but attempting to impress a belief system into a set of rules by which all must live is archaic.