I would rather live in a Fag Nation than a Christian one. I say this, referencing the collective opinions of I greatly appreciate my country. I respect its Constitution. I am wary of religion. A recent discussion in my New Testament course addressing the topic of homosexuality within Christianity has affirmed these three points. It astonishes me that individuals can disregard science in favor of documents touting ancient ideas, ideas that are often taken out of historical context and misunderstood, no less. It also saddens and angers me that some will champion ancient scripture over the Constitution, even going to the extent of retrojecting what amounts to “religious wishful thinking” into the history of our purposely-designed secular country. I wish that American culture was more accepting and knowledgeable concerning homosexuality, refusing to infringe on the innate American right of liberty. In addition, I wish scripture was understood more comprehensively.
The Hebrew Bible (what many Christians disrespectfully refer to as the Old Testament) is a composition of various books, the earliest of which date back to about 5,000 BCE. These books were written by human beings, not by God, but anthropomorphic ideas of a supreme being. Many fundamentalists affirm that their respective scripture is the literal word of God, and should be read as such. These individuals feel that society is an affront to their beliefs, to their morality. I tend to think that this is often misappropriated fear of the world. Only those searching for a fixed, unwavering constant in an ever-changing world will affix the title “infallible” to any document, religious or otherwise. So, to say that a piece of scripture is written “by God,” and inerrant, is an example of one who is quite intimidated by the world, and reticent to use true critical thinking faculties.
I think biblical scholar Marcus Borg is far more accurate in describing scripture as a “human response to God.” That is why God has an evolving personality within the Hebrew Bible, with the more violent deity of the Torah yielding to a more judicious figure in the Wisdom books (Job, Psalms, Song of Solomon, et cetera). It also explains how the depictions of Jesus vary in the Gospels; these are unique, human understandings of an incomprehensible force within the universe. I do not argue the Bible’s insignificance, I only argue that it should not be considered neither infallible, nor an autobiography.
I am not an atheist. Journalist Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, refers to himself as an antitheist, one even more disapproving of religiosity and divine beliefs than the everyday agnostic. I am quite suspect of labels, especially those that consist of a single word, so I am hesitant to proceed in iterating my own theological convictions. If this must be done, I would put forth that I prefer to be considered a secular agnostic. I believe in the separation of church and state, as outlined in the American Constitution, and I find no need to affiliate with any institutions of one of the many past or present religions created by human beings. I do not hold myself to the opinion that no God exists. Instead, I lay my concerns with religiosity on the shoulders of religiosity itself, and I will not bring God into the mix.
One of the most irritating and insipid arguments in modern political discussions is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between man and woman, rebuking the rights of monogamous homosexual couples, yet affirming the rights of monogamous heterosexual ones. Even cursory knowledge of the American Constitution yields the paramount theme of the document, that personal liberty cannot be obstructed by either federal, state, or local governments. It is my opinion that if heterosexuals have a right to marry (which they do), then heterosexuals have that very same right, as Government cannot discriminate as it sees fit in a manner such as this.
Now, there is no question that the inspiration for such daft proposals towards the amending of the U.S. Constitution comes from religious conviction, especially that of Christianism. I use this term to refer to the politicalization of the Christian religion, likely inspired by the term Islamists, which refers to those individuals who feel that Islam is not only a religion to be practiced, but also an additional political system. Certain individuals within Christianism argue that the founders of our republic were, not only Christian, but also sought a type of “Christian Nation.” When addressed with the question of why no mentioning of this can be found in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, a typical Christianist may respond with the convenient and impulsive argument, “It did not need be stated, as it was implied.” I doubt a more ignorant supposition based on puny historical insight cannot be made.
Let us begin with Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in Notes on Virginia (1782):
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
There is also James Madison, who once remarked, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution" (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785)
Finally, there is the first holder of the Executive Branch, George Washington, who once stated in a letter to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, that “Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience” (1785). The founders of our republic had no intention of creating this supposed “Christian Nation.” Proponents of such credulousness should be identified as such, and for sound reason, as they affect arguments regarding gay marriage.
The question of homosexuality is a religious one. Most proponents of daft ideas such as constitutional amendments defining marriage between a man and woman are framed within a religious context, primarily a Christian one in this country.
This is to affirm allegiance to Christian principles, and support the validity of the scriptural affirmations against homosexuality. Two of the most suggestive passages in the Hebrew Bible occur in book of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). Passages negating the sexual intercourse of same-gendered individuals occur in the New Testament, although no instance of them can be attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Instead, they occur in reprinted epistles of Paul: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and (although largely considered a forgery) 1 Timothy 1:10.
However, does Paul (and the mimicked Paul of 1 Timothy) really refer to our understanding of homosexuality? Probably not. The term homosexual had not been coined until the end of the nineteenth century, and the first use of the term in a version of the Bible did not occur until 1946. What, then, could Paul have been addressing? Victor Paul Furnish, author of The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues, provides some insight:
Beginning in the sixth century B.C., homosexual love had a relatively prominent place in Greek social life…Women had come to be valued only for their part in helping to ensure the continuation of the race. In this male-dominated society, even when the young female form became the model for beauty, the youthful male was regarded as embodying the ideal. Thus, the more a youth resembled a female, the more he was admired by older males, and the more apt he was to become the object of their erotic attentions (59).
This societal phenomenon, known as pederasty, is the love of an older man for a boy or male youth, and it was extolled by Plato and many other philosophers as the purest form of love (Furnish 59). Over time, these young embodiments of physical characteristics attributed to women turned into exploitation. Other first and second century writers such as Seneca, Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom affirm this exploitative behavior in their various recorded epistles (Furnish 60-2). It is quite probable that Paul was not specifying his concern for homosexual tendencies, in-and-of itself, but rather the exploitation of young men at its expense, not consensual homosexual intercourse. Even if Paul did not approve of sexual attraction towards a member of the same sex (even if consensual), he lacked one development in his time that is present in ours: genetics.
In his very illuminating book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Matt Ridley writes:
A man develops a sexual preference for women because his brain develops in a certain way. It develops in a certain way because testosterone produced by his genetically determined testicles alter the brain inside his mother’s womb in such a way that later, at puberty, it will react to testosterone again. Miss out on the genes…and you will not be a typical man (264).
The scientific pursuit to understand homosexuality debunked previously conventional ideas that a child’s upbringing determined their sexual orientation. Ridley explores the repercussions of such knowledge:
If the sexual preferences of gay men are greatly influenced (not wholly determined) by a gene, then it is probable that so are the sexual instincts are heavily determined by our genes, then they have evolved by natural and sexual selection, and that means they bear the imprint of design (280).
No person chooses their sexuality—nature does it for them. So, how does one reconcile the question that asks, “what if Paul and other Christians believed that one decided their sexuality?” Simple. They were wrong.
Secularist need to ensure the Constitutional rights of homosexuals, just as they do for heterosexuals. We need to recognize the limits of ancient scripture, as certain ideas and outlooks have become archaic in the midst of modernity. Previous understandings of homosexuality have become white elephants. There is no need for government-sanctioned marriage, and no need to amend the Constitution. Let religious organizations marry who they deem to be in accord with their specifications of marriage. Let the Government recognize civil unions, pertaining to both heterosexuals and homosexual couples, free from the dated beliefs of various religions. Protect the right of religious institutions to deny marriage to gays and lesbians, or anyone else whom they deem unworthy of the ceremony (the separation of church and state works both ways), but any government-sanctioned benefits given to a heterosexual couple must be given to their homosexual neighbors.
Lady Liberty is a secularist, her scripture is the Constitution, and her Communion is the nourishment that comes from preserving the liberty of all her people. God bless the American doctrine that separates church from state. Hallelujah.
