Recently we’ve all been hearing about how the “moral majority” came out to the polls in November to “re-elect” George W. Bush. Of course Bush in all of his arrogance has gone on and on about how he’s been given a clear mandate by the people, how he has political capital now and plans to spend it. So what political capital has he been spending these last four years? Since when is Bush concerned about “the voice of the people”? Bush isn’t the only one that’s been talking about this recent “mandate” by the people, the Christian right has been celebrating their “moral victory” over the rest of us. They are not only convinced that they were the determining force behind the Republican party’s sweeping victories but they’ve been very vocal in pointing this out to the rest of us, going so far as to threaten to vote everyone out of office that doesn’t embrace their political agenda. They have been claiming that this election was all about morality and they relish the thought that they hold the moral high ground. There has been a lot of media attention about the role that morality played in this election. There has been a lot of attention about the issues that are dividing Americans and which group has the momentum and the moral high ground, which side has is in the mainstream and which side is out of touch with what the people want. There has been a lot of talk about the red states and the blue states and these current divisions in this country. One of the biggest issues that has been exploited in this past election was the issue of same sex marriage. The bush regime and the right wing forces in the country sought to turn the focus of this election into a debate over morality, bringing the issue of marriage to the forefront of American politics. They claim that the election was mainly decided over the issues of “traditional marriage”, abortion and the merging of church and state (although I would argue that three years of ramming fear tactics down Americans throats didn’t hurt their election chances any). Eleven states in November put the issue of banning same sex marriage on the ballots and in all eleven states the ban was passed by a clear majority of voters. Emboldened by this victory in these eleven states over gay rights activists (who they ironically believe are attacking their way of life) the Christian right are escalating their efforts to push their religious values on the entire country. The leaders of the Christian right, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson lash out on a daily basis over what they claim would be a disaster if same sex marriage were to become legal. God will not stand for it, they claim, going so far as to place the responsibility for 9/11at the feet of homosexuals (among others). Falwell and Robertson are a few of the more recognizable “traditional marriage” advocates that grace the forefront in the Christian right’s battle to rewrite the constitution to define marriage specifically and only as “between a man and a woman”, however they are certainly not alone. Christian groups, their leaders and of course their flocks have been very vocal with their opinion that same sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, is wrong. They argue constantly that they are only defending their Christian beliefs from the homosexuals that are trying to destroy their way of life, the sanctity of marriage and our society in general. If you look at some of the arguments used to oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality, each can be easily refuted. The religious right offer absolutely no credible arguments (even based on their own beliefs) or evidence that should be taken into consideration on this issue. The only thing they present in their opposition to same sex marriage and homosexuality are distortions, convenient interpretations, scare tactics and bigoted conjecture, which no one (except those unwilling to think for themselves) could possibly take seriously. So by focusing on each of their arguments against same sex marriage and homosexuality we can, not only dispel their unsubstantiated myths, but we will have explored each aspect of their argument and have the ammo to counter each of their points. One of their most common arguments is that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. This is one of the most commonly used arguments but what is it based on? Whose definition are they arguing? God’s? The bible’s? Or just what they perceive to be the word of god as dispensed by televangelists and right wing radio show pundits? Well judging by god’s supposed messengers here on earth (who are completely absent of any credibility as far as I can tell) I think I’ll wait for official word from straight from god, and considering that I’m an atheist don’t plan on holding my breath. But has marriage traditionally been an institution between one man and one woman and is that what is advocated in the bible? Neither historically nor biblically has the institution of marriage always existed as only between one man and one woman. The bible actually advocates men enjoying the ability to have numerous wives, and how does a man accumulate his wives? And how many may he have? Well a man can have as many wives as he can afford, you see according to the bible a man can purchase as many wives as he can afford by purchasing each from her father. What a beautiful thing tradition is huh? Another fine tradition would be the beautiful tradition of marriage existing between people of the same race, which was embraced in this country until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia was unconstitutional a mere 38 years ago. Inter-racial marriage was not recognized in this country until 1967 and is still looked down upon by many, those most opposed still referencing the bible to prove that god condemns inter-racial marriage. The majority of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage in 1967 when the Supreme Court changed the law, just as, by what we saw in this past election in 11 states, the majority of Americans are now opposed to same sex marriage. The same type of scare tactics were used by the same type of closed-minded people that were so determined to deny people of different races to commit to one another. The same way that two people of the same sex are now being denied the same right that is now reserved for people of inter-racial relationships. And as we’ve seen the last 38 years our society didn’t come to a crushing halt because of inter-racial marriage like those opposed to the idea then contended, like those opposed to same sex marriage today contend. And does the bible even actually condemn homosexuality or has it been rewritten, misinterpreted, misquoted or embellished upon to suit a political agenda and justify bigotry? The original bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for homosexuals. The word "homosexual" is made up of Greek homo, meaning "the same," and Latin sexualis, from which the English word "sex" is derived. The word "homosexual" has been in use to refer to people who have sex with others of the same gender for only about 100 years. Another word that you may be surprised that doesn’t appear anywhere in the bible is sodomy. “Sodomy is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A ‘Sodomite’ in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family. The term ‘sodomite’ in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for ‘temple prostitute’. (See the recent book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.) The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male-to-male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible. No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos ("different flesh" and from which the word ‘heterosexual’ comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for ‘sex’.” according to Rembert Truluck (of www.truluck.com which has a lot more excellent information there). For more points relating to the convenient interpretation of the bible see the section: Does the Bible really call gay and lesbian people immoral? What about the argument that same sex marriage threatens to destroy the institution of marriage. This certainly is an interesting argument to make, claiming that people embracing the institution of marriage would be weakening or destroying the institution itself. This baseless claim that somehow same sex marriage threatens or detracts from “traditional marriage” is complete nonsense. Also by recognizing same sex marriage instead of denying it society would encourage people to be with who they really want to be with. The way things are now society, instead, encourages homosexuals to ignore and deny their true feelings and by doing so often will marry the opposite sex in an effort to conform to society’s current standards. This, of course, will usually end in divorce when people can no longer live a lie. Living a lifestyle that is encouraged out of a desire for social acceptance is definitely not a testament to the institution of marriage and will most likely only add stress to a marriage and sooner or later end in divorce. Extending same sex couples the same opportunity to marry who they want to begin with would reduce the number of divorces that occur, and in doing so actually strengthens the institution of marriage. Another argument is that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. So what? Slavery was a traditional institution as well and historically dates back even further than marriage does. Should advances never be made because they violate tradition? Imagine someone trying to make the point to you that slavery should not have been abolished because it was a traditional institution. The next argument is that marriage exists to ensure the continuation of the species by procreation. If this really is a point worth arguing then why is there no law to prevent infertile couples from being wed? Or an infertile person from being wed as it obviously takes two to procreate. The reason being that marriage shouldn’t only be the right of those planning, wishing, choosing or able to bear children. Again can you imagine proposing an amendment to the constitution forbidding those incapable of bearing children from being extended the right to marry? It’s a ridiculous thought and a ridiculous point that they make here. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children is another argument offered. First off in what other instance does government or society decide who can and who can’t have children? granted that at times when a child is abused social services may step in and remove a child from an abusive household but in no other circumstance are people denied the chance to adopt or raise children. Convicted child molesters, rapists, sex offenders and violent abusers are all entitled to marry and have children. If the well being of the child was really the issue here, and not just another homophobic accusation, then we would assume that there was an effort being pursued to screen what would and wouldn’t be a healthy environment for children. There is no such pursuit being sought by the Christian conservatives. So what about specifically addressing the issue of whether or not homosexuals would make good parents, studies by the American Psychological Association compared groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents found no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's. Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children. This type of claim is just another form of fear tactics used to further an anti-homosexual agenda. One of the most pathetic arguments is that special rights shouldn’t be granted to homosexual couples. Granting same sex couples the opportunity to marry doesn’t constitute special rights considering that the other ninety percent of Americans currently enjoy the right to enter into the institution of marriage with another consenting adult. This is an argument that creates resentment and justifies people’s homophobia, insisting that by arguing this point they are not denying people of their rights but merely not prepared to grant “special rights”. As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it. The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is a very misguided claim. In fact, we see this argument often incorporated into legislation aimed at suppressing gay rights, charging “crimes against nature”. This is complete rhetoric as it’s been well documented that over 450 different species of animals engage in homosexual behavior. So to make the claim that homosexuality is unnatural is to discount nature itself. A very offensive argument that I’ve heard made is that same sex marriage would set the precedence for all types of legalized perversions. Aside from the implication that homosexuality is a perversion being offensive unto it’s own we again see the scare tactics used to imply that recognizing same sex marriage would lead to a wider acceptance or forced recognition of other forms of immorality. As our fine moral crusader from Pennsylvania has claimed, “If the supreme court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family and that’d sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist, in my opinion in the United States Constitution.” That was a quote by Republican Senator Rick Santorum, our elected representative to the U.S. Senate who often equates homosexuality to incest, bigamy and even bestiality. Now what exactly would happen if society were to legalize same sex marriage? What would become of society, as we know it? Well if you were to listen to the extreme proponents of same sex marriage like Senator Rick Santorum you would maybe believe that society, as we know it, would cease to exist. Or maybe if you were to listen to someone like Pat Robertson, another shining example of a shameless fear-mongering extremist who actually threatened that god would intervene as a result of gay organizations putting up rainbow flags to show their support for sexual diversity in Florida. Robertson said, “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” Well Robertson would lead you to believe that God will certainly smite us all for even the faintest hint of tolerance shown towards homosexuality, imagine his rage if this country was to legally recognize same sex marriage. but realistically will any of these things actually happen? Of course not, well some might happen but would you actually attribute any of it to the recognition of same sex marriage? Would you attribute it to God’s wrath? I suppose if you were desperate to find meaning in any and all natural disasters then you could rationalize everything that ever happens and point the finger of blame at someone or something every time but that’s pretty absurd. What’s very plain to see is that all of these statements are in fact scare tactics and nothing more. It’s simple fear mongering by a desperate group of bigoted people who are terrified by what they don’t understand. And in their fear they are determined to scare the rest of society, through their false claims and accusations, into condemning what they fear. They assert that they have the keen foresight to describe for us what would happen to our society if we took that regrettable step of legalizing same sex marriage. If only the rest of us had their insight into what would happen or if maybe there were already a model of what would happen. Well this leads me to their next argument that Same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment. It just so happens that a model for a society that has legalized same sex marriage does exist, several in fact exist. It’s not surprising that most Americans wouldn’t be aware of that though, considering all of the scare tactics and distortions that are spoon-fed to the American public through the conservative Christian agenda, right wing punditry and corporate talking points. It is in the best interest of the political agenda that they are pushing to never admit that there are countries that legally recognize same sex marriage, countries that have not been smitten by god, societies that have not come to a crashing halt or led to the recognition of bestiality, bigamy or any of the other things that the Christian constantly warn us will happen if we were to extend marriage rights to homosexuals. Denmark was the first country to legalize same sex marriage in 1989. As Scott Bidstrup observed, “Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.” In addition to Denmark same sex marriage and civil unions between gay couples have been legal or are in the process of becoming legal in: Argentina, Iceland, France, Greenland, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Portugal, Sweden and new Zealand. So as I said there is a model that can be looked at but it doesn’t help the right wing’s fear mongering efforts to actually look at or consider the facts or the positive results of living in a freer and more tolerant society. Many Americans can’t face the cold hard truths that there are, in fact, other countries that have more freedoms than we do as Americans; that other countries actually embrace freedom, equality and tolerance in practice and not just in theory, like we do here in the United States; that citizens from other countries can actually live their lives and peruse their dreams with the type of religious and government suppression like, we as Americans, have to live with. Sort of like the citizens of Afghanistan lived with under Taliban rule, or like any country that embraces religious extremism and allows that extremism to exist as and determine rule of law. This is the sort of religious extremism that has been steering American policies in recent days. We are headed in the direction towards total religious extremism ruling every facet of our lives here in this country. And although the conservative revisionists would argue that our nation’s founders, our “fore fathers” forged this country based on Christian ideals that really isn’t the case. Again the religious right always seems to suffer from selective memory and outright distortions when it comes to the subject of America’s founding principle of the separation of church and state. This country was indeed spawned from a desire to protect people from religious extremism and from that extremism infiltrating and influencing governmental policies, the very type of religious extremism that is currently being embraced by the political party in power. In all of the references that the revisionists of American history (desperately trying to convince us of America’s Christian heritage) will cite, here’s a great quote that they really don’t want the public to hear: “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 half the world fools and the other half hypocrites.” That quote was by Thomas Jefferson, this country’s second president and one of our “founding fathers.” Why does it seem like Jefferson had so much distain for Christianity when he spoke those words? Perhaps he knew his history, the very history that the religious right conveniently forgets, denies and tries to sweep under the rug. The history of humanity is a blood-soaked one and throughout our history countless people have been brutalized because of religion. More people have suffered in the name of Christianity than probably any other religion in history. Christianity has been utilized in justifying: bigotry, intolerance, abuse, rape, slavery, murder, genocide and every other horrific crime committed against humanity. Christianity, based on it’s own history, lacks any shred of moral authority to make any claim of moral leadership, that they so ironically love to claim. The bible has been used to justify every one of these crimes since it’s creation. Someone always seems to find a passage with the pages of the bible that can justify every terrifying atrocity throughout history. Religion is a very powerful and moving weapon for the faithful and the blind obedient. The bible has been wielded against every type of minority since it was first written, just like it’s now being wielded against homosexuals today. Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, has absolutely no place in American politics or in any other walk of life where they have the ability to force their views on anyone. Christianity has no right peeping into the bedrooms of consenting adults; intervening into the personal lives of others; trying to legislate morality or trying to force their own narrow-minded beliefs into law. They have no moral right to stand between two people that love one another and wish to be in a committed relationship. As soon as they take it upon themselves to do these things they undeniably place themselves in the position of oppressor and certainly not in the position of being on the defensive. They are most certainly not defending themselves from people trying to destroy their ideals, they are not the ones under attack; they are the ones making a conscious effort to deny people from having their own beliefs, making their own decisions and living their own lives because their ideals differ from Christian ideology. They go to great lengths to place themselves in this deceptive role as those on the defensive. Why? Because maybe in spite of it all they really do have a deep desire to not occupy that role of oppressor, so they need to rationalize their oppressive actions. So they convince themselves that they are the ones on the defensive and that homosexuals are the ones attacking their way of life. They convince themselves that god is the one passing judgment upon homosexuals, not them; they are merely carrying out god’s will, preaching god’s word and doing god’s bidding here on earth. But in reality, that’s not how it is. Whether you believe in god or not I would venture to say that no such deity has ever come down and asked anyone to safeguard the institution of traditional marriage. So what then are they putting all of their unquestioning faith in? In the word of people who have an obvious political agenda; in people who profit personally by this unquestioning faith; in people that profit by having a mass of people that will do their personal bidding for them, that will go along with everything they claim, that will be the loyal sheep in their flock while they purge the masses of anyone possessing differing traits, characteristics, beliefs or ideals from their own. That is what has always been a threat to society, a threat to individuality, a threat to freedom, equality, tolerance and morality. If you want to talk about a “tested social experiment” then this is the perfect example and that is: no society that chooses to determine what people should believe, how they should act, how they should live, love or exist; no society that regulates morality based on religious extremism that oppresses people has ever or will ever endure. The Christian conservatives that believe they are fighting to preserve their society are guarantying its eventual destruction. If history has taught us anything it’s that the more oppressive a society becomes the more that people will yearn to shed themselves of that oppressive system. We see that Europe and other parts of the world are still making progress in their attitudes and in their understanding of the world as it changes around them while here in America are unfortunately regressing. In this country we are moving in the opposite direction, we are not making any advances towards a freer society we are instead opting to rescind all the social advances that people have fought and died for centuries to gain. We are throwing away all of the progress that those in power fought so hard to prevent in the first place and now they are reclaiming lost ground by preying on fear and subjugating the masses. Change never happens quickly, it is always a battle against those who profit by exploiting our differences and keeping these divisions in place, the divisions that conveniently distract us from their well-played divisiveness by making others the scapegoats of society while they reap the benefits. You have to ask yourselves what really are the motives behind the sudden push to redefine marriage in this country. Why now? Why are we debating the issue of same sex marriage so passionately now? With everything else going on in our country right now: we’re trapped in a quagmire in Iraq; more soldiers are returning in body bags everyday for illegitimate reasons; The economy is in terrible shape; the deficit is higher than at any other time in history; corporate corruption and polluting are completely unchecked; the rich are better off now then ever before because of slanted tax cuts; social programs are being cut; corporate interests are looting Medicare and eyeing up social security and our last few freedoms are being written out of existence. There are the reasons why we’re focusing so much debate on the issue of same sex marriage, family values and morality; because it’s the necessary distraction needed to keep our attention away from what the truly despicable members of our society are getting away with, right under our noses. Scapegoats are always necessary to allow those at the top to conduct themselves unnoticed and homosexuals are just the latest in a long line of scapegoats that are being exploited to divert the attention and unease of the masses. There is a “homosexual agenda” in this country and it is, scapegoat homosexuality and same sex marriage; distract us by legislating who fucks who so those at the top can fuck us all. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION To me the issues of same-sex marriage or homosexuality are very simple in that diversity exists in many forms in people and these differences should be celebrated and not scrutinized, feared, hated or exploited for political gain. I will never understand why people, throughout history, have always feared and despised what they don’t understand. We will never live in a world where everyone is the same, and who the hell would want to? I find it very ironic that religious people who claim to represent a tolerant and loving system of beliefs are actually amongst the most intolerant, judgmental, bigoted and oppressive groups of people. Although they’ll never admit it, their need to hold onto their supposed “moral superiority” provides them with the interesting dilemma of how to preach intolerance and bigotry while keeping the moral high ground. I should admit here that I am certainly not an expert on theology or the bible. The following text was all taken from www.falwell.com which is a site dedicated to show the hypocrisy and bigotry that is being used by Jerry Falwell and others in the Christian right with their convenient interpretation of the bible, quoting only the verses that advance their anti-gay agenda and ignoring the rest. There is a lot of valid points made here and more in depth on the webpage as I had to edit the following info down due to size constraints. Does the Bible really call gay and lesbian people immoral? Around the time that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves, a lot of Southern preachers were urging him not to do so. In a climate in which even the United States Supreme Court declared that African Americans were only three-fifths human, America's preachers were called to action. But instead of preaching against the evils of slavery, our preachers did something shocking. They quoted the Bible in defense of slavery. They declared that it was God's Will that black people be kept in chains, as furniture. They said that it was ordained by God to be this way, that white men should own black men. And they quoted the Bible to back up their claim, both Old and New Testaments. The Bible can be very easily interpreted to condone slavery (Leviticus 25:44-45). But such is not God's Plan. But try telling that to those men of God in the mid-1800's. They could quote the Bible better than anyone ever could, and lots of people believed them. Today, some preachers are still using the Bible the same way that those racist Southern preachers used it to defend the slave trade. Except now, they are using it to say that gay and lesbian people should change. They are using it to try to stop gay and lesbian people from gaining their equal rights. They call it "special rights", all the while standing on the street corner, using the Bible as a weapon of intolerance against gay and lesbian people. They quote the book of Leviticus where it says, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) but fail to consider the scripture within its context, which shows us that the book of Leviticus says that... • It is an abomination to wear clothes of mixed fibers (cotton/polyester blends are the most popular); • It is an abomination to eat pork; • It is an abomination to eat lobster; • It is an abomination to drink milk; • It is an abomination to have a blood transfusion; • If your brother dies, you are commanded to take his wife as your own. Bigoted people and preachers almost always follow the same path. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they want to believe, while ignoring the parts that they find inconvenient. Most people do not read the Bible first and then decide what they believe. They have beliefs inside and THEN go through the Bible, trying to find verses that justify those beliefs. Everyone does this, including people who are bigots and people who are not. It is time for the Church to recognize this and put a stop to its own prejudice. Think about it carefully. There is no evidence, either psychological, medical or psychiatric that shows that sexual orientation can be changed. The only people who claim that it can be changed are those who have a religious bias against it. It is time for the church to review the evidence at hand and admit that it has made a mistake regarding gay and lesbian people. Old Testament Bible verses that are ignored Here are some Old Testament verses that come directly from the Bible that preachers refuse to quote publicly, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their personal bigotry against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself... Some preachers often quote Leviticus 20:13 against gay and lesbian people, which says... "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) Let's now take a look at other verses that are in the same book as the above verse. This exercise proves that those preachers who are so enthusiastic about quoting Leviticus 20:13 become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses. Far from being about faith, this is really about the desires of certain preachers to promote religious prejudice against gay and lesbian people... "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9) Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Most preachers conveniently choose to ignore this verse, which is merely 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13. "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18) Imagine what would happen today if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period (which is exactly what the above verse commands). Most preachers choose to ignore this verse, which is merely 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45) Did you ever wonder where racist Southerners and even the Supreme Court in the 1800's got the idea that slaves were just "property" and not people? From the above verse, which most preachers, in their picking and choosing, choose to completely ignore. Or, maybe someone should ask those preachers if they support slavery, as does this verse. Those Southerners were still racist, even though they were quoting the Bible to support their racism, just like some preachers quote Leviticus 20:13 to support THEIR bigotry against gay and lesbian people. "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) Almost no preacher has never preached against the evils of shaving as they choose to completely ignore this verse as well. But that's what many anti-gay preachers do...they pick and choose what to believe. So much for being a "Bible believing" Christian, as many often claim to be. "At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts." (Deuteronomy 15:1) Imagine the chaos that would befall the American economy if the United States Government decided to "cancel" all debts every seven years. It would be an unmitigated disaster, which is probably why most anti-gay preachers quietly choose to ignore this verse, too. "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death..." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) If anti-gay preachers were to tell parents to bring their disrespectful children to City Hall headquarters to be stoned, they'd probably lose their entire following, which is why they also choose to ignore this verse, too. "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19) Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields, so most anti-gay preachers choose to ignore this verse as well. If they were to preach against farmers, they'd be in an uproar. Most anti-gay preachers also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. I could be wrong, but the shirts that these preachers are often seen wearing must be a cotton/polyester blend, the most common in the United States of America. Yes, they choose to ignore this verse, too. "Bible believing" Christians? Hardly. They're one of those "pick and choose" Christians. In conclusion... What does this all mean? It means that most anti-gay preachers really ARE bigots even though they quote the Bible to back up their bigotry against gay and lesbian people. They pick and choose what parts of the Bible justify their condemnation of gay and lesbian people and ignore those which do not. They quote the Bible against gay and lesbian people but conveniently choose to ignore verses that are in the very same chapter as the ones they quote. You have to understand, bigots usually ALWAYS use out-of-context facts ("non-sequiturs") and half-truths to justify their bigotry. This proves that most anti-gay preachers choose which parts of the Bible endorse their own personal beliefs and ignore those that do not. What does this mean for you? It means that you can truly grow in the proper study of the Word ONLY by recognizing that the Bible shouldn't be misused the way those anti-gay preachers misuse it. Many fundamentalist Christians have written to me since I first authored this page. They have argued that the verses I quote above are from the "Old Mosaic law". As such, they argue, the admonitions that it is OK to own slaves and forbidden to shave or wear clothes with two different fibers are not meant to be taken literally for our modern day. My response is to agree completely! That is my whole point. If all the verses I quote above are NOT meant for today, then the anti-gay verses are not meant for today, EITHER. You can't say on one hand that, "Those verses are party of the old Mosaic Code" while using OTHER verses in that same code against gay and lesbian people. The Old Mosaic code forbade homosexuality for a very simple, logical reason. The Jews believed that it was a sin for a man "to waste his seed". They believed that a man only had a limited number of sperm and once it was used up he could never have children again. Therefore, the Jews, because they did not have the benefit of modern science, declared that sex must only be used for procreation. This is completely understandable since they were in desperate need to grow the Jewish population. Today, however, it is foolish to take that verse out of context, given our historical understanding of its purpose. It is also foolish to apply a 4,000 year old admonition against homosexuality to our modern day, especially when we understand the reasons why it was made Old Testament law...to grow the Jewish population. New Testament Bible verses that are ignored Here are some New Testament verses that come directly from the Bible that preachers refuse to quote publicly, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their personal bigotry against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself... "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34) This verse says that women must not speak in church. This verse is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical. When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists usually insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word. When it comes to this verse, however, they offer various excuses as to why it should not. They often say that it was only meant for that time, an explanation that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality. "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15) Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their "head must be covered." It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? ...Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5) "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colossians 3:22) "Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back ." (Titus 2:9) "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18) Slaves should obey their masters? Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters...even cruel ones! Conclusion Fundamentalists "pick and choose" which Bible verses that they like to declare as "the infallible Word of God" while quietly ignoring or even explaining away the ones that appear above. When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, they constantly assert that what is being said is to be taken literally and without exception. If the Bible is the literal Word of God, then every verse in it must be taken literally. Some verses cannot be taken word-for-word while others are dismissed. The above verses prove that a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture produces irrationalities and profound inconsistencies. The American Psychological Association’s official stance on: Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"? Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias. Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem? No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation. Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents? Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's. Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children. Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality? Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.