Monday, May 14, 2012

Why I Don't Support Same Sex Marriage


Last week, President Obama publicly supported same sex marriage and liberals celebrated. Many black bloggers and intellectuals heralded it as a historic leap forward for humanity. Not me. I don't care what the media says. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I will never support same sex marriage.

In this secular and hedonistic society, religion and morality have become irrelevant. Although I am flawed, God is primary in my life. Everything else is secondary. Islam, Christianity and Judaism condemn homosexuality as a sin. No ultra-liberal distortion of scripture can negate that fact. Here are a few verses from the Holy Quran, Surah 7:

80. We also (sent) Lut:
He said to his people:
"Do ye commit lewdness
Such as no people
In creation (ever) committed
Before you?"

81. "For ye practice your lusts
On men in preference
To women: ye are indeed
A people transgressing
Beyond bounds."

82. And his people gave
No answer but this:
They said, "Drive them out
Of your city: these are
Indeed men who want
To be clean and pure!"

83. But We saved him
And his family, except
His wife: she was
Of those who lagged behind.

84. And we rained down on them
A shower (of brimstone):
Then see what was the end
Of those who indulged
In sin and crime.

The Holy Bible contains similar verses in Genesis 19. Leviticus 20:13 states that:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."

Yes. The Bible was deliberately misinterpreted to justify slavery and Jim Crow. However, like its stance against adultery and fornication, the Bible's opposition to homosexuality is unambiguous. It is not a question of exploitation or misinterpretation of the Bible. Calling someone a "sexual redneck" does not change that reality.

Since the critics are unable to refute holy scripture, they mock God, scripture and believers. They desperately scour the Bible for other "objectionable" verses and exploit those verses to try invalidate the Bible.  No one uses those "objectionable" verses to justify adultery or fornication.  So why do they drag out those verses to justify homosexuality?  For those of us who believe, God's word is infallible and timeless. We are not fazed by current trends. God's word is not subject to Gallup polls.

When that hustle does not work, people try to draw comparisons between the plight of African Americans and the plight of the LGBT community. However, such comparisons don't hold.  Unlike homosexuality, racial diversity and oneness of humanity are celebrated in holy scripture. Moreover, race is an immutable and obviously visible biological characteristic.  One cannot hide one's racial identity. Africans were enslaved, robbed of their identity, brutalized, lynched, segregated and humiliated just because of the color of their skin.

The oppression of LGBT people in America does not approach the scale and scope of the oppression of black people. Sexuality is a behavior pattern. Whether or not homosexuality is innate or learned is debatable. Unlike race, sexuality is not necessarily a visible trait. One can easily conceal one's sexuality. However, one cannot hide being black. It is outrageous for anyone to exploit our history of suffering and pain to further their own unique and unrelated agenda.

Certainly, Martin Luther King, Jr. employed the nonviolent tactics and example of Gandhi to further the Civil Right Movement in America. Both movements shared many similarities.  Both movements were fighting against racism and white supremacy.  Therefore, a comparison between those two movements is more justified.  Furthermore, Dr. King did not use Gandhi's movement to morally justify the Civil Rights Movement.  Instead, Dr. King relied on the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to morally inspire the movement. I wish the LGBT community would stop pimping our movement to further their cause. 

In addition to love, the primary purpose of marriage and sex is reproduction of the human species. In order to sustain strong communities, we must rebuild the most basic and fundamental component of society, the traditional nuclear family. With more than half of all black children being raised in single parent households, our focus should be on rebuilding the traditional family, not jumping on the same sex marriage bandwagon.

Finally, we must understand that this whole spectacle is just election year politics as usual. Other than sparking a conversation and gaining the political support of the gay community, the President's statement did not make any practical difference. In fact, he essentially said that same sex marriage should be left to the states. Approximately thirty states ban same sex marriage. The President's statement does not change any of that. I fear that he has only given the Right a reason to rally around Mitt Romney.

This article is cross-posted on Jack and Jill Politics.

16 comments:

  1. **side eye** This was a very hard article for me to read and I don't know if it is because I have such a close personal tie to you or what but this was hard to read.
    Everyone deserves the right to marry the person that they chose to marry. None of us have the right to judge or rally against anothers rights. You can quote the bible/quran all day long but unless you follow it to a T then it shouldn't be used to support such a powerful stance. I don't understand why people (not just you) pick and choose bible scriptures that fit into their views but ignore others they blantantly violate. e.g. premarital sex, cohabitation, kids out of wedlock, drinking, smoking, drugs etc. etc. We all sin, we all do wrong and need forgiving. We have no right to judge or say we won't support another peron because of their sexual orientation. You also mention the primary purpose of marriage and sex is reproduction. I agree with that but I also think two women or two men can still reproduce. It may not be in the most traditional manner but it can still happen. Who are we to say what's right and what's wrong. What's natural and not. Who are we to say this? It's fine to have your personal preference but who are you or anyone out there to judge or say you will never support it..many Christians can say the same about your Muslim beliefs..***written with lots of love***

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the second paragraph, I acknowledged that "I am flawed." All of us are sinners. All of us fall short of the glory. However, that does not mean that we are obligated to endorse sinful/wrong behavior.

    My intention was not to judge. I was simply stating why I do not support same sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anson,

      I appreciate your thorough expression of your thoughts.

      RE: the Holy Quran, Surah 7:

      80. We also (sent) Lut:
      He said to his people:
      "Do ye commit lewdness
      Such as no people
      In creation (ever) committed
      Before you?"

      Notice the phrase "as no people in creation." The men of Sodom were not human men. They were fallen angels. They mated with human women (a very heterosexual act). Genesis 6

      They ran in the way of Cain (who was a murderer not a homosexual). Jude 1:11

      They "left their proper dwelling place and first place of power." Jude 1:6

      "God did not rescue angels who sinned, but condemned them with Sodom and Gomorrah, and yet rescued Lot." 2 Peter 2:4-7

      2 of the men of Sodom were engaged to Lot's daughters. (indicates they were heterosexuals, not homosexuals) Genesis 19:12-14

      The 2 angels attempted to rescue Lot's sons in law, but thought Lot was joking (even though they had just been struck blind by the 2 angels like the rest of the mob), and perished. The angels would not have attempted to save these 2 men who were equally guilty of the attempted gang rape if Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality.

      The men of Sodom never got a chance to rape the angels, and God does not punish for deeds not committed. Genesis 19:1-11

      The account in the the Holy Quran, Surah 7 shows the men may have "preferred to rape the angels" but nowhere shows they actually did. It shows the men of Sodom "committed lewdness" but it was the mating of fallen angels who *transgressed beyond bounds (OF HEAVEN)* with human women (ON EARTH)(which *did* happen),

      It is *not* a reference to them mating with human men (which did *not* happen):

      80. We also (sent) Lut:
      He said to his people:
      "Do ye commit lewdness
      Such as no people
      In creation (ever) committed
      Before you?"

      81. "For ye practice your lusts
      On men in preference
      To women: ye are indeed
      A people transgressing
      Beyond bounds."

      Delete
    2. Leviticus 20:13 includes the phrase "as with a woman" because it is addressing heterosexual married men who engaged in adultery with other men.

      I appears just 3 verses after Leviticus 20:10 which addresses heterosexual married men who engaged in adultery with women.

      In Leviticus 20:13, God is clarifying that adultery is adultery, whether it is committed with a woman or a man.

      It is still an abomination for a heterosexual married man to cheat on his wife with other men.....just ask his wife!

      It is not a reference to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people.

      Delete
    3. On the other hand, Jesus teaches that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are born so from our mothers' wombs, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 19:11-12, and exempts us from heterosexual marriage.

      The Apostle Paul ordains marriage for 2 groups of unmarried people in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. The 1st group (1 Corinthians 7:1-7) is clearly heterosexual. The 2nd group (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) is clearly *not* heterosexual, or they would have been included in the 1st group.

      Paul goes on to share in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 that

      The Holy Spirit declares that in latter times, faux Christians would be seduced by doctrines that demons teach, and through hypocrisy and pretense, forbid people to marry.

      We have to ask 2 questions: Who is forbidding people to marry?

      Who is being forbid to marry?

      Delete
    4. Your interpretations are a major stretch, but thanks for sharing your views.

      Delete
  3. I am a well educated legally married black homosexual woman, extremely proud of the person I've become and the evolution of my life. It amazes me how black folks, regardless of their socio-economics, continue to support judgement (yes Brother you are in fact imposing judgement via your religious beliefs) of another group of individuals who are disenfranchised. It's a sad day that a group of people who were all but still 5th class citizens are now adamantly opposing human rights based on fallable writings that have been "inspired" by prophets to control the will and minds of others. Black folks are lost and bewildered more now than ever and have yet again played into a system that will ultimately contribute to the annihilation of our race. Trust me, because I am one of few proud black homosexuals, I counsel many preachers, politicians and etc, who flock to me just for support and understanding of their double lives (which I am not an advocate of but we all are on a different life journey). These men and women are hurting on the inside because they won't expressed themselves and be honest with their spouses and families. As a result, we are creating a dysfunction that is perptuating a stigma of slow, painful deadly silent around our communities. Until we break free of the systematic rhetorics of biblical illiteracy, we will continue to die a painful death. Blacks need to stop crying about their oppression and move on to progression. Blacks love to carry on about how LGTB folks now have the spotlight. If sin is sin then oppression is oppression! To end with a scripture you quoted, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..." Well my brother we all interpret this differently...let me offer my understanding: man can not lie with man the way he lies with woman, that's impossible...therefore man must lie with man the way man does and if not then yes it is detestable. Oh, one last observation, let's not pick and choose which scripture of oppression we enforce on society. Truth be told, according to the Levitical laws we would all in some way be burned or stoned to death! Can't isolate scriptures if we're trying to make it into heaven!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ e Katrina Armstrong..wonderful response. I couldn't have said it better..

      Delete
  4. @e Katrina Armstrong...Thank you for your thought provoking comments. I will reflect on them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So are you saying that in the days of Jim Crow, if a person could pass as white, that person should? That is certainly what you imply when you state that unlike race , sexual orientation can be hidden. Without getting into the psychological effects that such passing can have (and not every gay person can pass) itdoes not make it correct or desirable. The reliance on scriptures that to you are holy does not mean that every one has to follow them . The Quaran and Old Testament are definite on not eating pork (in facr much more clearcut than the alleged prohibition against same sex marriage.) Do you therefore claim that people who do not follow the Quaran or the OT should not e allowed to eat pork?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @hekates Of course not. I do not think that anyone should pass or necessarily hide. I am simply stating the obvious differences between race discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

      I do not believe that anyone should be compelled to follow any particular faith. I strongly support the First Amendment. I was merely stating why I do not support same sex marriage.

      Delete
    2. You JUST stated "race discrimination" vs "sexual orientation discrimination".. What difference does it make which adjective is before DISCRIMINATION? How could you possibly not see the connection? Black people don't own the words discrimination or civil rights.

      Also you smooth ignored the question of no pork/no shrimp/constant stoning/constant okay of slavery in the bible. You clearly do not live by those things and are not writing blog posts boycotting Red Lobster or the McRib. Your only defense is to say that people only bring those up to point out your illogical use of the bible as your justification for gay people not having civil rights that everyone else have... So what.. You don't have to be lawyer to know that is not a very good argument.

      You say you support the first amendment but every one of your arguments is based in religion... How on earth does that jive with strongly supporting the first amendment?

      No one is saying any church has to recognize any union that they don't want to. But the state has every obligation to treat everyone the same.

      Delete
    3. In general, I condemn many forms of discrimination, even discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, I do believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Why is that such a radical concept?

      I do not believe in imposing my beliefs on anyone. My article does not expressly support any constitutional amendments and referendums banning or outlawing same sex marriage. I am not attempting to legislate my personal religious beliefs. I am merely stating my beliefs. Similarly, eating pork, drinking and gambling are against my religious beliefs. However, you will never see me seeking to ban those things. So, your analogy about pork, shrimp, etc. is not applicable.

      The First Amendment supports your right to advocate same sex marriage. Likewise, the First Amendment also supports my right to voice opposition to same sex marriage.

      Delete
    4. If there is an amendment in your state at the next election banning same sex marriage would you vote for it, against it, or abstain? That is the whole point of the conversation is it not? Obama is clearly saying he would vote against it. You appear to be saying you would vote for it. How is that not imposing your religious belief on other people if religion is the basis for all your arguments?

      The first amendment also says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So religious arguments hold no water and are not consistent with strongly supporting the first amendment.

      But okay bro... whatever.. If you say you are only stating your opinion then fine. But I don't see the point if you would not act on that opinion if given the chance. I'm Christian too but I'm not going out of my way to argue against other people having rights. Especially using the EXACT same language they used against us. I don't get it... But good luck defending it.

      Delete
  6. "Gay couples are going to get together. It's been happening since ancient times. Legal prohibitions didn't, couldn't and would never stop it. Isn't it better that gays conduct their relationships within the context of a well-defined marriage law, same as heterosexual couples?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly, homosexuality will exist until the end of time. However, that does not mean that the state must recognize same sex marriages. LGBTs can maintain long term, committed relationships without the legal trappings of marriage.

      Delete