ambitious_wench

Well, I can pretend I'm the fundie I used to be. Here are my reasons (which I no longer believe at all):

Homosexuality is indecent because:

- the Bible says so
- it's unnatural
- homosexuals tend toward pedophilia
-it's a grotesque parody of the loving, God-determined relationship which occurs between a man and a woman
- sex was designed only for reproductive reasons. Since gay men and women cannot produce children, they are perverting sex

This is how I was brought up to think, and I'll betcha a jam-filled doughnut this is how the scary fundies in power were also brought up. The difference is, I discovered the error of my ways, whereas they've become set in theirs.

From:

I know you no longer believe this, but may I post an argument against those points?

From:

ambitious-wench.livejournal.com

by all means, please do.

From:

Okay, I'll do my best to hit these point by point as best I can. Let me know if I have some holes in my arguments if you see them. I feel like such a beginner. ^_^

<>- the Bible says so

Well, the subject of homosexuality is mentioned rarely in the bible. The main passage in which it was mentioned was Leviticus. This is also the great book that allows you to sell your daughter into slavery, etc.

lilrivkah wrote a good paper on this, available here : Clicky (http://rivkah.com/artwork/tutorials/leviticus.htm).

The basics on this book is that it was 1) written for the Jewish Priesthood, and 2) in relation to rules involving the temple that fell in Jerusalem (I believe). Most rules of this book are not recognized in modern usage, and seen mainly as a cultural reflection.

Aside from Leviticus, there is Corinthians. Again, Rivkah wrote another informal paper on this some time back. Click it. You know you wanna. (http://rivkah.com/artwork/tutorials/newtestament.htm)

I would add to this, but I think the arguments are relatively solid.

- it's unnatural

Okay, this is too vague. Unnatural by what means? There are cases of gay dogs, roosters, penguins, geese, and others. You can find books on it on Amazon.com . So, it does occur in nature in some instances. Also, unnatural does not mean bad. We alter all manners of crops to make them healthy. We alter livestock. Even in the time of Jesus and before there was genetic tampering through horticulture and crossbreeding in animals to change what was 'natural' to nature into something 'unnatural' by making it stronger, sturdier, better tasting, more beautiful etc.

If it's not a scientific approach, it would probably cycle back to the bible. In that case, we refer back to the previous question.

- homosexuals tend toward pedophilia

I'm not sure about how this one would be proven. I hear more about older men molesting underage girls and daughters than I hear about men molesting underage boys. I have seen NO proof to verify that gay men have a greater tendency towards pedophilia than straight men. A pedophile is a pedophile not because of sexual orientation, but because they're sick bastards. If anybody knows of research otherwise, please feel free to expound on the subject.

-it's a grotesque parody of the loving, God-determined relationship which occurs between a man and a woman

The issue here is the word grotesque. It's a predetermined judgmental word that denies recourse. If you feel it is disgusting, that would be your perspective, personal and not universal. Then we have the word parody, which means in layman's terms to mock in a public way.

Watch out for those public gay orgies.

And finally we get the word "God-determined", which sends us back to the first argument. This point is not debatable other than in the religious realm.

- sex was designed only for reproductive reasons. Since gay men and women cannot produce children, they are perverting sex

This point is argued by the existence of the oldest occupation in the world, prostitution. One would ask why it would exist if sex exists for reproduction only. How about adultery? Not that I am winning on a moral argument here, but the fact these things exist would show sex is driven by more than just baby-making. Plus, same-sex couples can still have kids. Artificial insemination? Adoption anybody? I think same-sex couples are an excellent opportunity to cut down on the millions of children (in the world) without a stable home. They can be just as loving as any normal parents.

Um.. okay. I think that's it for the point by point. In the end I would argue biblically if possible, as all the other points seem to edge back to that.

Thoughts?

From:

If you wanted to stir up more shit, you could talk about the homoerotic tension between David and Jonathan, and also the lesbianalicious tale of Ruth and Naomi.

From:

Well, in all honesty, I don't know the bible as well as I would like. :)

I'm not certain how to win the argument, honestly. At least, not with those arguments I posted. It requires both parties to be open minded and not feeling threatened. Still, there has to be a way.

From:

Those 'informal papers' need to be rewritten by the way. . . -_-; They're about a year old, and I have a little more insight now on the subject of actual marriage between same-sex couples.

From:

the fact [prostitution and adultery] exist would show sex is driven by more than just baby-making.

Bad argument, because their whole point here is that sex is *supposed* to be about reproduction and that using it for other purposes is wrong. You can be fairly sure they believe prostitution & adultery are wrong and harmful, so drawing a parallel between those things and homosexuality is an own goal. Bringing up artificial insemination & adoption at this point is also probably counterproductive; that just pushes more buttons.

If you want to change somebody's mind about this point, better to turn it around: what about heterosexual couples who can't have children? Even those faiths which *do* hold that such marriages are null (most prominent being Catholicism) are reluctant to advertise this belief, since it puts them in an uncomfortable position - most people are not, in fact, in favour of dissolving marriages of heterosexual couples just because they can't have children, and will retreat from the "it's all about producing children" line when they realise that consequence.

From:

Additional:

Watch out for those public gay orgies.

If you try this line, expect to be anwered with "You mean like Pride celebrations?"

From:

Line was said in sarcasm to a semi-known audience. Also, the retort is not valid, as an orgy is sexual, a parade is not.

I would hope you would realize that in a face to face discussion I would not say this. Here, this was not even a debate, just my thoughts in reply for which I asked permission. As I concluded at the end of the piece, the only argument here (that I can see debated) is religious. From there I would try to separate what is sanctioned by state rather than religion.

Might still not convince the other party though.

From:

Line was said in sarcasm to a semi-known audience.

And it's fine within that context; I was just reminding people that it's not going to work so well in argument.

I would hope you would realize that in a face to face discussion I would not say this.

Unfortunately, I know plenty of well-meaning people who *are* quite capable of reading things like this, and then going out and trying to use lines like that in argument, with bad results. Some of them may be reading this, which is a large part of why I tried to add a caution. Too many people forget that in politics, it's not enough only to be right; we also have to be persuasive.

Also, the retort is not valid, as an orgy is sexual, a parade is not.

First off, "valid" (in the logical sense) and "effective" aren't the same thing. Irrational arguments can still be very, very powerful; if we imagine that the logical level is the only level on which we have to argue, we will be squashed by demagogues who know that a snappy comeback is worth more than an intelligent one.

Second, you haven't seen some of the Pride parades I have :-) The Mardi Gras parade here (Sydney's Pride celebration) begins with a vanguard of 'Dykes on Bikes', many of whom ride topless. It also features a lot of leatherboys in outfits that leave very little to the imagination, condoms thrown out to the crowd from parade floats, drag queens with suggestive names, some very risque floats, and generally a lot of "in-your-face" behaviour - much of which *is* overtly sexual. Then there are the after-parties, some of which most definitely *are* 'gay orgies'.

From:

Ah, yes. I see your reasoning. As far as I know, here in Austin things seem a bit toned down. But, I'm an introvert, and am in the process of getting out more. ;)

I tend to me more analytical online when looking at arguments, but you are correct on the issue of snappy comebacks. One good line can derail whatever logic you were attempting to get across. It's a shame, but very true. Thank you for bringing up these points. I'll try to be more realistic about actual discussion in future posts. I would hate to have someone read something that they take to heart, then get discouraged when they get verbally smashed.

Lastly, can I come to Sydney? I would love to just see that parade. :P

From:

They have a website here with photo gallery :-)

From:

I like your points about turning it around. I never thought about bringing up childless couples.

Part of the problem in arguing about anything related to marriage to other Christians/Jews, is that there IS no mention of who and how to get married in either the Tanakh or the New Testament. Christ's only answer on marriage is to a person who asks him, "What if a woman were to marry a man, and he dies and she remarries? To whom would she be married once in heaven?" To which Christ replies, "She would be married to no one for no one is married in heaven." I'll see about finding the actual passage, though it's been a while since I've studied the New Testament.

In the Tanakh (or 'Old Testament'), the only references to marriage are to those already married (a man's duty to his wife and a wife's duty to her husband) and divorce. There is no mention of HOW or WHO may be married or denied marriage. The fist mitzvah (often translated as 'good deeds' or 'godly acts') given to Moses from G*d is, "Be fruitful and multiply." From this phrase have generations of beliefs sprung that the only purpose to marriage is to bear children. In traditional Hebrew marriage contracts, there is no mention of love, merely a husband's duty to his wife.

The problem with this is that "be fruitful and multiply" is grossly outdated. Bearing children has become a luxury in modern society, whereas before, when the Hebrews were wandering the desert, small and surrounded by enemies, bearing as many as children as possible was necessary. It was a means of increasing their ranks and making themselves more powerful. The world has now reached a point where it is no longer MANPOWER that determines one's strength, but TECHNOLOGY. Marriage has ceased to be a necessity born out of the need to bear children, and more of a business contract between two consenting individuals, wishing to love and support one another. We recognize strength in uniting minds. Since marriage is a TRADITIONAL more' instead of a BIBLICAL one, it means it is free to evolve with changes in society.

There is another flaw in Christian logic I must point out. There were several kinds of Commandments given to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai:

"Mitzvah" - (pl. "Mitzvot"); a Command of G-d. There are several types, including the following:

Seven Commands of the "Sons of "Noach"/Noah (refers to all of humanity because the entire human race descended, according to the Torah, from the survivors of the Great Flood, the "Mabul.") These commands are presumably "built into" the soul or conscience of the human being. The seven commands are:

a. Not to engage in the practice of idol-worship
b. Not to "Bless (euphemism for "curse") the Divine Name
c. Not to Murder
d. Not to engage in Sexual Transgressions
e. Not to engage in Theft
f. To Establish a System of Courts for the Administration of Justice
g. Not to eat a limb torn from a live animal (against cruelty to animals)
Six hundred thirteen Commands of the Torah, binding upon the Jewish People, including:

a. Two hundred forty eight Positive Commands (for example: "You shall eat Matzot for seven days" - ("Shemot"/Exodus 12:15) and "Honor your father and your mother" (Ibid. 20:12)) and
b. Three hundred sixty five Negative Commands (for example: "You shall not murder" (Ibid. 20:13) and "You shall not curse a deaf person and You shall not put a stumbling block in the path of a blind person." ("Vayikra"/Leviticus 19:14))

The first set for "The Sons of Noah" are basically the Ten Commandments you hear about everywhere. They are commandments for everybody.

The last set is for JEWS AND JEWS ONLY. They are cultural and traditional values. Modern Christian interpretations like to translate transgressions of these values as 'sins' when in fact, they are not sins. Which means, in the long run (getting back to the topic of marriage here), just because you are not "fruitful and multiply," that doesn't mean you're going to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. All it means is that your breaking a cultural tradition, and as we well know, traditions change with time . . . and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

From:

Part of the changing of this tradition is to allow same-sex couples to marry for the love and enlightenment they bring into modern society. The Bible does not condemn changes in tradition. The only condemnation that can be found in the bible is from acts that break the 10 Commandments. This includes acts in the New Testament as well as the Tanakh.

I would also like to point at that Reform Judaism accepts same-sex marriage and that the modern marriage contract has been altered from the traditional to include the concepts of love and support for one another. If a male-male or female-female couple can abide by the 'laws' of these contracts set forth by both the Jewish and Christian churches (there is no mention of childbearing in any of the vows I've heard) then they can also fulfill the traditional obligations that come along with marriage.

From:

Oh, and I'd like to credit my definition on Mitvoh to Ou.org: http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/m.htm#mitzvah

From:

"Not that I am winning on a moral argument here"

I admitted this was not a good arguement.

From:

Go for it!

From:

And, "It's not for me, therefore it's not for anybody."

There's also an ugly little catch-22 that goes something like this:

"I wouldn't mind gays if they didn't make such a big deal out of it and shove their sexuality in our faces."
"But most gays don't do that."
"All the ones I've met do."
"Actually, *I'm* gay..."
"See, now *you're* shoving your sexuality in my face!"

From:

Because many Christian churches still preach that the day America allows same-sex marriage, is the day it'll fall. Then they say the reason for the fall of Greece and Rome was homosexuality (when all us smart people really know it was political corruption, strife, and barbarian attacks that did 'em in). And they ACTUALLY believe it! I was told this by a priest and several other church leaders when I asked them about homosexuality in the bible . . . this was back in the days when I was still Christian and went to Christian Church every Sunday and Christian youth groups every Wednesday and bible study every Tuesday.

It's no WONDER I converted to Judaism! The priest had no grounds to say what he did, and then followed it by saying that all homosexuals are going to hell. I was like, "I can't believe I'm hearing this," but for some reason, seemingly nice, normal people really buy that BS.

From:

They believe it because they've been taught it for generations, and it's easy to demonize people who do things you couldn't imagine yourself doing (or even worse, could imagine yourself doing, despite "knowing" it's wrong).

When I was in grade seven, I knew a sweet, generous boy named Shane who would do anything to help someone in need. But he was also a raging racist, and believed the only good nigger was a dead one. When I asked him why he believed such a hateful thing, he said because his Daddy told him so. I sure hope he learned otherwise by the time he grew up.

I also knew a real sweetheart of a man named Frank who was also generous and kind. Except he regularly posted virulent diatribes against sodomites in the letters to the editor of various newspapers.

How can such otherwise good people have such ugly sides? I think it's through fear and ignorance. It's just a bloody shame such frightened and uneducated people go on to gain political power.

From:

panacea1.livejournal.com

(when all us smart people really know it was political corruption, strife, and barbarian attacks that did 'em in)

I always thought it was the lead in their plumbing....

From: