Getting Past the Arguments for Same Sex Marriage


I had a lively debate on Twitter about same sex marriage the other night. I can refute every argument against Same Sex Marriage with facts. It’s time America got past the silly nonsense of denying an entire group of Americans the right to marry.

I call it a right because there are over 1400 benefits (state and federal) that are afforded by the government to a married couple. While some couples make their wedding a church/religious affair, marriage is first and foremost a government granted right. If it wasn’t you wouldn’t need a state certified marriage license. The church would simply write down your marriage if only ordained by the church.

The Declaration of Independence promised all Americans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are three inalienable rights afforded to all Americans. Marriage is another of those inalienable rights. It is unconstitutional for any government (state, local, federal or otherwise) to deny anyone the right to marry, who is over the age of consent and unrelated. So, why are so many people against Same Sex Marriage?

1. Fear – People fear the unknown. They don’t understand same-sex relationships, so they’re quick to dismiss them as legit or logical. A same-sex relationship is actually quite similar to a heterosexual relationship. Same-sex couples eat meals together, spend time together, share bills and buy household necessities together, raise children together, buy/build/design a home together, participate in hobbies together, etc. It’s really not very different than any other relationship save for the intimacy involved and even then, it’s fairly similar.

I’ve found that educating others, especially those opposed to same-sex marriage, who don’t know a single gay person, has changed many views. Speaking from experience, being GLBT is not a choice. It’s who the person is, and nothing has ever been proven to change GLBT individuals, not even “reparative” therapies or “get rid of the gay” camps. Not even the church can make a GLBT person non-GLBT. They just make the person a liar.

2. The Bible says it’s bad. Which Bible have you been reading? I’ve read many a Bible and most of the English translations make a mockery of the original Bible. The original Bible was written in Ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Before quoting the actual Bible, I recommend people learn Ancient Greek (Open Texture has an excellent program, which uses authentic Bible text – free of English-translated dogma). You can find various places online to learn Hebrew, and I’m sure Aramaic as well.

Then you can go to websites like Codex Sinaiticus to translate the various Ancient Bibles out there yourself.

I can tell you for a fact, there was no mention of homosexuality in the original Bible. There wasn’t even a word for homosexuality until the 1800s. What the Bible did refer to was, the “pagan” temple slaves/prostitutes. These men were condemned. They participated in orgies that celebrated the Gods and yes that included homosexual orgies. The term associated with this was to’ebah, which is often translated as an abomination or a detestable act.

It’s not hard to imagine early Christians condemning this. They believed polytheistic orgies were detestable. Christianity has always been a relatively prudish religion. However, the Christians were paranoid about the polytheists, in particular. The systematic elimination of polytheistic practices (including the subsequent rape of women and murder of men – in order to cleanse the world of polytheists and convert the non-believers) was due to polytheism’s threat to Christianity. For centuries, the Christians feared the resurrection of polytheism, and condemnation of polytheist acts, including temple prostitution and “divinity inspired orgies,” is to be expected.

In the Bible, these male temple prostitutes/slaves are referred to as qadesh. This has been mistranslated to mean homosexual. How would the Ancients have meant qadesh for homosexual when homosexual wasn’t even a word then? It’s clear that the Bible was condemning the temple prostitutes (qadesh) and their orgies as an abomination (to’ebah) and therefore, there is not a SINGLE mention of homosexuality or its condemnation in the Bible.

The Ancient world didn’t have this bias towards homosexuality that we have.

3. Marriage has always been traditionally heterosexual. We cannot change the institution of marriage from what it has always been.

Not so. Actually, many Ancient cultures celebrated same-sex marriages/ceremonies. The Ancient Chinese dynasties, many African tribal groups, the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans, the Ancient Egyptians, early Native Americans, and many other groups celebrated not only same-sex ceremonies, but these were a normal, every day occurrence in these cultures. Transgenderism has also been documented as far back as Ancient Africa, but that’s neither here nor there in the same-sex marriage debate.

Heterosexual marriage, in its earliest sense, was considered a contract between a heterosexual couple. It was said, in some Ancient civilizations, a man coupled with a woman for wealth/status/to continue the family line and coupled with a man for affection and companionship. This makes perfect sense when you look at past examples, such as the blatantly bisexual, Alexander the Great. Alexander married more than once, for status’ sake and to bear a child. He was the lover of Hephaestion because they cared for one another and were each others’ best companions, along the same grain as Achilles and Patroclus (and no Troy fans, he was not Achilles’ cousin!).

Over the years, the lines have blurred for what is “traditional” and what is “marriage,” especially for heterosexual couples. Where once, men only married women to have children, gain status and wealth or other gains (such as a better job – upward mobility), eventually, couples started marrying for love. In some cultures, women are still married off for status/birthing purposes. This “marriage for love” thing is only a relatively new practice, perhaps only in the past 100-200 years with occasional instances of “heroic love stories” occurring before then (you know, the stuff legends are made of).

If you think that we should keep heterosexual marriage traditional, then we need to remember what traditional marriage was:

-a father chooses/sells their daughter’s suitor
-the woman might not even meet her husband until the day of the wedding
-men have the right to marry multiple women (as shown in many Ancient texts, including the Bible)
-men seek wives for status/wealth
-the father of a wealthy male has say in who his son marries
-marriage for love can get a man/woman kicked out of a family (disowned)
-women must obey men unquestioningly
-women stay home to raise/bear children, cook meals, clean house, etc.
-a man can take a woman (his wife) sexually whenever he wants and it will never be considered rape
-many men were also involved in pederastic relationships (on the side)

You see, the tradition of marriage, in ANY form has changed drastically. Traditional marriage would be impossible to impose upon our current culture, so why try to make up an ideal for “traditional” marriage when there is no logical tradition in this culture?

All of the arguments against same sex marriage are silly and frivolous. People need to get over themselves, know the facts, and realize there is absolutely no reason to deny loving couples, of any gender, the right to marriage as long as it is consensual and between two non-related adults.

[tags]heterosexual, marriage, homosexual, same sex marriage, pederasty, ancient cultures, GLBT, traditional marriage[/tags]


8 responses to “Getting Past the Arguments for Same Sex Marriage”

  1. It’s funny that you should describe the ancient Christians as “prudish.” They probably were, since early Christianity was an apocalyptic group which foresaw the end in their own lifetimes (yes, just like some contemporary Christians).

    The pagan writers had an answer for why they met in secret, in caves, crypts, or other hidden places: orgies.

    We tend to think of the Ancient Romans as a pretty randy lot, but many of the religious practices tended to the ascetic. Those Christians talked about upsetting the order. They had to be perverts, right?

    Each side accused the other of sexual sins.

    • While I believe that compared to now, early Christians would be considered “prudish” by today’s standards, I believe it was more the fact that the temple prostitutes were polytheists was more threatening to them.

      Essentially, the no orgies was used as a smokescreen to condemn polytheistic beliefs.

  2. Excellent, intelligently written argument for same-sex marriage! Yes on 8 folks claim, “Same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.” If we are protecting the sanctity of marriage by law, why don’t we start by making divorce illegal? Let’s make infidelity a felony! Let’s require training and therapy prior to marriage! Marriage between a man and a woman is NOT threatened by same-sex marriage, nor would it be enhanced by a discriminatory law that seeks to “protect” it. Yes on 8 folks also claim, “We must protect our children!” What, exactly, is it that we are protecting children FROM, I ask? Science has already proven that homosexuality is biologically-based. The fear-based belief that children will somehow “become” gay by simply learning that same-sex marriage is legal is ignorant at best and very dangerous at worst.

    • You really hit the nail on the head.

      I should have talked about “saving the children”. I didn’t want my post to get too long, so there were some subjects I didn’t touch upon.

      You have an incredibly valid point, though. Both the American Pediatrics Association and American Psychological Association have done extensive research on children living in same-sex households. What they found was this:

      -children of GLBT individuals were as well adjusted (if not more) than children in heterosexual households

      -children in GLBT households showed more compassion for others than children in heterosexual households

      -children in GLBT households were as likely as children in heterosexual households to actually be GLBT themselves (which wasn’t an overwhelming statistic)

      -children in GLBT households (when GLBT themselves) were more willing to accept themselves than those raised in heterosexual households

      There is absolutely NO HARM to children and with in vitro, adoption options, and sperm banks, GLBT individuals are not a threat to waning populations.

      I personally believe that people who are GLBT just might be “made that way” as a way to control the population. Not every person on the Earth is designed to have their own children. Otherwise, we’d be overpopulated.

  3. I’m so glad there are other sane people who realise that the supposed arguments against same-sex marriage are complete bs!!! I’m proud to say i live in a country (the UK) where LGBT can marry ..well we have to call it a ‘civil partnership’ but everyone knows what it is really! lol hopefully it will be legalised in America and on the continent soon – isn’t it funny how we see ourselves as so advanced, and yet, socially, the Romans and Ancient Greeks got it so much better than we do?
    xxxxx

Leave a Reply to Jean P. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.