Sunday, February 3, 2013

The Bible and Homosexuality

     I need to start off by saying that I'm not going to try and convince you that the Bible supports homosexuality, because is doesn't (Sodom and Gomorrah). Today I'm here to show why opposing homosexuality because "the Bible says to" is an illegitimate argument, why society does not base its laws on the Bible, and what society does base its laws on. I will start with a picture quoting a conversation from West Wing below:


Let's look at some other immoral actions in the Bible and then discuss why society doesn't follow them today:
     *Example #1: Genesis 38:8-9 shows the Lord killing someone for ejaculating outside of a woman he slept with. In addition, this man was forced to have sex with his brother's wife by their societies standards because his brother had died.
     *Expamle #2: Genesis 19:31-36 is about two girls getting their father drink so that they can sleep with him.
     *Example #3: In Biblical times, Jews could only walk so many steps on the Sabbath or risk grave punishment.
     So why doesn't society practice these three examples and those quoted in West Wing? Because the values behind these examples take away from another's freedmons that don't subtract others' freedoms. Killing a man for choosing to spill his semen on the floor takes away that man's freedom to ejaculate where he wants. That freedom does not take away anyone else's freedom. Forcing that same man to marry his brother's wife takes away his freedom to choose whom he wants to marry. The freedom of choice in marriage takes away no one else's freedom. Getting any person drunk and then having sex with them takes away his/her freedom to have or not have intercourse with anyone of their choosing. The freedom of choice of partner in intercourse takes away no one else's freedom. Selling ones daughter into slavery takes away her freedom to be free. Her freedom to be free doesn't take away from anyone else's freedom. Killing someone for working on the Sabbath takes away from their freedom to choose when to work. The freedom to choose when to work takes away no one else's freedom. Wearing garments consisting of two different threads takes away their freedom of choosing what clothing to wear. The freedom to choose what clothing to wear takes away from no one else's freedom.
     To sum up the last paragraph, only those things that take away from another's freedom is banned. Murder is banned because it takes away from ones right to life. Stealing is banned because it takes away from one's right to property. Speeding is banned because the chance of taking away from another's right to life is too high. This list can be continued indefinitely. 
     Society no longer follows many Bibilical laws because they unnecessarily take away from one's freedom. In fact, society, in general, considers it unethical to take away a person's freedom unless that freedom forcibly removed another's freedom. For instance, American society would not aprove of the Mexican laws dictating what cars can he driven on what days based on the license plate number because this removes our freedom to drive what cars we want when we want to without proof that our driving of these cars will take away another person's freedom. In fact, laws that run contrary to the principle of only taken away freedoms that harm others are being repealled daily. As a prime example, the Twenty-First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution repealled the Nineteenth Amendment. The drinking of alcohol does not take away other people's freedoms, so banning it removes the drinker's freedom to drink alcohol. However, drinking while driving has too great a risk of taking away another's right to life. Rape while drunk or raping a drunk removes the rappee's freedom to have intercourse only with people of their choice. Therefore, society allows drinking but no many actions that occur while drunk because these drunk actions take away from another's freedoms but drinking itself does not.
     In essence, society does not make laws simply because they are based on values from the Bible; instead, society bases its laws on the principle of whether or bot an action forcibly removes another's freedom. Some laws based on this principle do coincide with Biblical commandments, but they are not based on Biblical commandments. I'm fact, most people consider it morally wrong to force religious beliefs as law upon a nation. How would you feel if Mitt Romney had won the elections and passed a 10% tax on all non-Mormons that went straight to the LDS church? Or if a Muslim president enacted a law forcing five prayers to Allah a day and punished people who did not follow this law? For those same reasons, laws should never be based on the Bible or any religous text or belief.
     How does two homosexuals marrying take away anyone else's freedom? It doesn't. No one else has their freedom endangered by allowing homosexuals to marry or elsewise be together and display their love for one another. Therefore, outlawing homosexual marriages and practices is needlessly holding back the freedom of homosexuals. In addition, the argument that "the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination" is invalid since our society does not base laws on any religious text, or at least claims not to, and doesn't believe in making laws based on religion. Laws should he secular, and the American society, as a whole, agrees that laws should be secularly based. Finally, like The Nineteenth Amendment, laws against homosexuals WILL be repealled eventually as society learns the error of their ways and bases laws even more upon the principle of banning actions based on their forcible removal of other's freedoms and not on religion or prejudices.

Search This Blog