Equal rights, equal fights

an essay on homosexuality + morality

In his essay, “Prejudice and Homosexuality,” Richard Mohr writes about the long-debated morality of homosexuality. I was immediately struck by how relevant his words still are today and his impeccable use of fluid reasoning to defend the rights of homosexuality. In this paper I would like to explore the morality of legalizing gay rights, and gay marriages from a Christian millennials point of view. I will compare and contrast what I was brought up to believe, by a traditional, conservative mother, and a father raised in the south whose moral views shifted with his ideas of pleasure, with three common arguments against homosexuality. Mohr writes about these issues in an inspirationally brilliant way, calmly and simply laying out the irrefutable truth that being gay is no more immoral than using your mouth to blow bubbles with gum.

It is both a cliche and a tragic truth that homophobia, like racism, are and have been rampant in the south for too long. My father, being raised in Florida grew up saturated in every evil -ism of the common world, racism, sexism, classism, etc. and firmly rooted in his homophobic views “for the Christian good.” Him, paired with the traditional, misguided Levitical views of my mother, was the recipe for the perfect storm of child-rearing. Thankfully, I was also raised in the ever-liberal, great state of California, so the conflicting views of my parents and the outside world were enough to keep me guessing, wondering and searching for the objective moral grounds of such matters. 

The idea that being gay was a sin, according to the Bible was the heaviest rebuke of the matter in the home of my youth. It would abruptly end any discussion, due to the omnipotency of it. You can’t argue with God. That is, until you realize that God never said that. And as Mohr points out, you must read the Bible selectively in order to fall on  such an erroneous conclusion. 

If one is to believe in God, then one must believe at least three crucial things; first, in the fact that He loves us, unconditionally.  Second, that He gave His life for us, so that we might spend eternity with Him, and so that our sins are ‘washed away,’ essentially-nothing can separate us. Lastly, He created us, so it’s safe to say He knows us, and is not surprised by us, but still He calls His creation good. The Bible is intentionally vague about certain matters such as homosexuality, and masturbation, but even so, it does not directly call them sins. In order to interpret the Bible accurately one must use the absolutes to determine the ambiguous. So then, if you are using faith in God as the basis for this ‘high moral ground’ of homosexuality being an abomination, you are incorrect, for it is unsafe to call it a sin. In fact, if you were truly using the inspired word of God as your basis you would only be able to be able to conclude that gay people have developed a different sexual preference than your own, and while that might make you uncomfortable, or might even repulse you, the God that you serve loves homosexual people equally as much as He loves heterosexual people, and He has made a place in Heaven for them, if they believe in Him, just the same as He has a place for you. “It seems then not that the Bible is being used to ground condemnations of homosexuality as much as society’s dislike of homosexuality is being used to interpret the Bible.” (Mohr) Christian religion does not work as a defense against homosexuality without misinterpretation, and beyond that religion is not always an accurate measuring stick for morality, being that it is rooted in personal belief.

The next most common argument my parents would use was that being gay is unnatural. It doesn’t line up with the design of sex or body parts, because sex is for procreation. This is the silliest argument, in my opinion, because “virtually everything that is good about life is unnatural…” (Mohr) Sex is for reproduction —except when it is for pleasure, or power, or connection, or love. When ‘unnatural’ refers to not being made by nature, then most of our lives are unnatural, but no one would dare venture to say that building a house is immoral, or wearing clothes. In fact, most would argue that not wearing clothes is the more immoral choice, if not merely highly erratic and immodest. And if being ‘unnatural’ refers to function, namely that the vagina is made to receive the penis, and the penis to fit into the vagina, and this, for the sole purpose of reproduction, then sex for pleasure would be immoral, as would every type of intercourse that was not penetrative with hopes of conception. By that logic, kissing would be immoral because the mouth is for eating, consumption, that is what is natural, thus what is moral. You see? Homosexuality cannot be immoral on the grounds of being ‘unnatural’ without applying absurdly rigorous standards to every aspect of our anatomy and outer world.

Finally, homosexuality is seen as wrong due to the idea that legalizing gay marriages and relationships will be the undoing of the traditional family unit, and of the country as a whole, to the ultimate detriment of civilization. My parents have expressed pity for children who grow up with same sex parents, claiming that they are going to be maladjusted, and at a disadvantage to ‘normal’ kids. The normative standard, I must assume to be myself, who was fortunate enough to grow up with a conservative, traditionalist, daughter of a baptist preacher for a mother, and a drug addicted, alcoholic, discriminating, Harley-Davidson riding, mostly absent father, but the obvious advantage of heterosexual parents. 

They have expressed their concern for the sacred institution of marriage, believing that gay people are merely attempting to make a mockery of marriage. There are many issues with this opinion, aside from the obvious lack of quality marriages, and longevity in heterosexual couples, and the widespread acceptance of divorce, I have trouble grasping this viewpoint. Being gay is a matter of fact, not of choice, and the fact of it causes such an upheaval of emotions from the outside world, stirring up controversy and persecution against the individuals who openly practice homosexuality. It is not, and has not been historically easy for homosexual relations to commence in the open. So then, what possible motive would these individuals have to fight for something like the institution of marriage, other than the recognition of their love as meaningful? If marriage is the ultimate expression of commitment and devotion in a heterosexual relationship, then it is fair and equal, and therefore, moral, to allow the same right and privilege to a homosexual relationship. I’m sure we can all agree that there is nothing immoral about love. And two people who have found love, who have practiced the moral virtues of perseverance, patience, and commitment in their relationship, and who desire to begin a family, to adopt a child, to spread their love, this cannot be immoral. 

Being raised in a family that is capable of transcending societal norms to seek out truth and love in the face of adversity can only make society richer. “Families with gay members would develop relations based on truth and trust rather than lies and fear.” (Mohr) If morality can be summed up in the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all,” which is found in our constitution, then we must recognize the individual’s right to freely love whomever they choose, because morality is “not merely the expression of the current collective will,” (Mohr) but it is the practice, and the conclusion of what is right, fair, true, equal and just to the individual and the collective good. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone, it does not steal, kill or destroy, it has no malicious intent, and if anything, it adds belonging, love, acceptance, and further understanding of human diversity. 

References:

Mohr, Richard D. “ Prejudice and Homosexuality.” More perfect Union: Why Straight America Must Stand Up for Gay Rights Beacon Press. 1995.