New York State's recent decision to legalize same-sex marriage is the next step in the inevitable: its growing moral acceptance nationwide. Now the Rhode Island Senate just passed its own bill allowing same-sex couples to enter civil unions. There's still a majority of states to change legislation, but it'll happen.
If we reflect about the possible sources that stoke continued outrage over homosexuality, including the decision about same-sex marriage by New York State, I think there are only three options.
There may be more, but the visceral, political and theological explains most of it. These options are not mutually exclusive as it's possible that some people are quite happy to mash them together. But for our purposes, let's look at the reasons separately, one by one.
The Visceral: In the HBO series, Call Me Fitz, when a gay couple arrives to buy a car, the main character's father, the owner of a used car dealership, finds himself having a panic attack. Ordinarily bombastic, brash and outspoken, the boss can't bring himself to be near them. To get the sell, however, he sends out his secretary to seal the deal. As a comedic parody, it's a hilarious moment. But reality works out very differently when the visceral transforms into hatred, such as that vented recently by brutish thugs on a gay man.
On the visceral level, whether it's a panic attack, a sense of aversion or a full-on lashing out against homosexuality, aggressors don't ruminate why they feel this way. They just do. They might even otherwise be calm, agreeable, even pleasant. But with the mere mention of gay rights, you can see their internal carotid arteries inflate. Maybe it's a vestige of a tribalism rooted deeply in our reptilian brain, where, far back in our evolutionary history, any sense of difference with others would raise the sense of threat. The main feature of this reaction, however, is that it's unlikely that those who feel it can give reasons for the reaction. They just feel it. Justification hasn't yet seeped into their conscious awareness.
Tracy Morgan's recent outburst during one of his performances, where he muses how he'd react to his son being gay, is another good -- or rather -- terrible, example: "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n**ger to death." Whatever comedic talents Morgan may have, he should reflect on the difference between bronze-age verbal ejaculations and observations that are supposed to be funny.
The Political: While more research needs to be done on the psychology of homophobia, there is a curious correlation between some outspoken opponents of homosexuality -- politicians and pastors in particular -- and what turns out to be their own sexual predilections. There might be something to the simple Freudian adage that the thing we oppose most furiously is the thing that most fascinates and stimulates us.
With this in mind, it's no secret that controversial matters can become fodder for politicians wishing to score votes with their constituencies. While we might suspect that a particular politician has no visceral sentiment about homosexuality and no theological bone to pick, there can be a pragmatic element to him or her showing moral consternation to the public. It's all done with the fervor that one's political base can only appreciate -- at least until the very same politician turns up soliciting sex with men in a public washroom, whether in an airport, public park or otherwise.
I don't have anything against someone wanting to have sex with a consenting adult. Rather, it's the abject hypocrisy of railing publicly against a behavior, coupled to the refusal to pass legislation, and then privately (albeit, not always behind closed doors) titillating the same act.
The Theological: Nobody reading this article should be surprised to see this listed as a source for homophobia. Conservative Christians have been very successful letting us know that the Bible considers homosexuality an abomination. That they'd kill because of it, even taking the preaching of homophobia to the four corners of the earth.
So, shouldn't we now ask if there is a good basis for believing that the Bible condemns homosexuality?
No.
This isn't the question to ask, because it doesn't really matter if it does. While I think there are problems with some of arguments made by the new atheists, their strongest collective point is that religion cannot be a source of morality. We are slowly realizing that there's little warrant to thinking that a text over two thousand years old should have any part in the moral guidance for contemporary legislation.
Indeed, over those centuries the Bible was used as the main source for deriving beliefs, moral and otherwise, that we've since discarded: That the earth is at the center of the solar system; slavery is right; that women are not equal to men; interracial marriage is immoral and, now, that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are an abomination.
So progress is possible, but only if we think about it. Himself an activist, Albert Einstein remarked, "The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking."
Greg Carey: What Does the Bible Actually Say About Marriage?
"Moral" comes from the Latin word "mores" meaning "customs". What is "moral" is customary, what is not customary is "immoral". Carthaginians who substituted slave babies for their own babies as human sacrifices were condemned as immoral by their priests. By our concept of morality human sacrifice is immoral and so is slavery.
"Ethics" comes from a Greek word meaning "one's own". Ethics are consciously chosen, unlike morals, which are absorbed by children without reflection.
"Religion" comes from a Latin word meaning "to bind back". Religion orders us not to do things which our culture considers immoral.
Religion and morality are therefore inseparable, but ethics are separable. What we need to do is formulate a national system of ethical behavior and encourage each other to behave in an ethical fashion. And one of the prime tenets of our ethics should be to respect the culture of others and not to try to impose our own cultural/religious mores on others.
I don't think I'm arguing with you, and I can appreciate that we should not be cultural imperialists, but sometimes we do need to impose our ethics on others and to be ready to have our own moral standards challenged. For example: Clitorectomies are immoral, and invading other countries without proper justification is wrong.
.
If it makes you all feel better, you will probably be "on the right side of history" ... for a little while.
.
Feel free as there is nothing in the law in any state of the union to do so.
.
What is at issue is the imposition on society by homosexuals of a legal standard that insists that homosexual marriage is equal to and completely analogous with heterosexual marriage. That concept is so obviously false that it is amazing that we are even discussing it.
.
And certainly there are good arguments against the lifting of homosexual behavior to a position of equality with heterosexual behavior that are not based on theology, politics or the catch-all "visceral" that the author puts forth.
.
Common sense is a good place to start. And if any HuffPoster can't use enough common sense to see the difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity, I presume that person is in a state of deep denial or not too bright. Or more likely simply doesn't want to admit that the obvious does not fit in with his or her worldview.
This and other well-established neurobiological findings about sexuality strongly support the notion that homosexuality is 'inborn' and not, as homophobes would have it, a matter of "choice" or a "learned" behavior. And if we are ALL made in God's image, why would "He" have made even one person gay? (And please don't respond with that specious 'mysterious ways' excuse.)
.
The person who has a predisposition to engage in homosexual behavior has ultimately two choices. 1) Decide that such behavior is not in the best interest (of himself and others), and do his best to avoid engaging in the behavior (A task which I do not envy) or 2) Decide that such behavior is in the best interest (of himself and others) and engage in it.
.
As a moral issue, the question is really a simple one: Is acting on homosexual predispositions in the best interest of self and others?
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/janet_boynes020509.aspx
I think a lot of it has to do with sexual dominance instincts, amplified by all the hate and body shame of those beliefs. Some religious beliefs amplify these things to fever pitches, especially when they also don't teach people a thing about managing their instincts, just 'judge' them.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
It really comes down to our philosophy of human nature. So I'd say that even if religion didn't exist there would still be good people who turn evil. Evolutionarily speaking, we aren't far from the sludge.
---
If the Bible should not have any part in public, societal moral guidance, why in the world would you depend upon that same Bible for private, personal moral guidance?
Plenty of Christians that are for the equal rights for gays.
.
Simple, undeniable facts. Sorry.
But if marriage should only be allowed for those who can procreate, then I guess you need to stop the marriages of all those heterosexuals who can't procreate either because of age or some physical defect. Or, perhaps those who marry and haven't had kids yet need to get on with it or else their marriage will be nullified? Arguing that procreation is a necessary condition for marriage doesn't logically follow. That's pretty simple to show too.
Here's another simple argument: Same-sex marriage is now allowed by various states. Therefore, homosexuals can marry! Another simple, but logically sound argument!
Not all bigotry is hatred, fear, ignorance, unquestioned religious belief, unconscious this-is-how-I-was-brought-up, or stupidity.
At least in the case oh homohatred there are at least THREE more characterizations.
One of these is the existence of a large number of wanna-be-straight-but-ain't people, also known as homo-hatin'-homos. George Rekers, Ted Haggard, Lonnie Latham, and Larry-ni-the-mensroom come to mind.
A second of these arre the class of people who make a swell living at homobigotry. Maggie gallagher, Alan chambers, Brian Brown are some really easy targets here.
And the third of these are the people who are terribly invested in the always present, always assumed, subtly argued belief in the wholly imaginary superiority of every heterosexual to any homosexual for no other reason than the fact of their respective sexual orientations.