THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Finding flaws with opposing gay marriage


image_pdfimage_print

By Jonathan Dudley

When I was earning my master’s degree in divinity at Yale, I never thought that years later, I’d be cheering the legalization of gay marriage in the state of New York. Still, while I was at Yale, I began to see an interesting pattern in some of the biblical passages I was analyzing.

Many conservatives use the Bible as a definitive source for why gays shouldn’t be afforded the right to marry. The problem is that there is very little in the Bible about same-sex pairings, and what’s there can easily be interpreted in multiple ways.

My point is that the biblical prop that politicians use to condemn gays is an illusion as are other elements of their arguments. My arguments, backed by research, undermine the basis for the far right’s objection to gays in America.

If the goal is legislation that both preserves marriage and reflects the Bible’s teaching, it is far easier to argue that divorce should be illegal than it is to condemn gay marriage. Although the New Testament only contains one uncontested reference to same-sex pairings, divorce is condemned throughout the New Testament, both by Jesus and the Apostle Paul. What’s more, the growing prevalence of divorce poses a far more credible threat to the culture of marriage in America than does the prospect of gay people marrying each other. In today’s America, the divorce rate for new married couples is 50 percent.

As gay marriage is still outlawed by the Defense of Marriage Act, we can’t blame the divorce rate on gay marriage. That figure is due to the dissolution of heterosexual marriages.

A growing number of theologians and young evangelicals have realized the Bible doesn’t require Christians to condemn gay rights. In fact, there is a growing movement that supports the idea that some of the translations and interpretations of passages in contemporary Bibles are errant, and also that the Bible even provides fodder for supporting gay marriage.

The community of evangelical biblical scholars, almost exclusively white heterosexual men, has a history of producing interpretations of the Bible that reflects its own interests and disadvantages those without power. The same leaders that insist on the most rigorous, stringent reading possible on homosexuality have come up with all sorts of nuances and complicating considerations to justify leniency for themselves when it comes to more obvious biblical condemnations of divorce. So, why is it that same-sex relationships don’t get the same treatment?

The reason is because it doesn’t serve anyone involved with interpreting the Bible for the purposes of creating modern religious canon.

The same community that insists on “the traditional reading” of the Bible on homosexual relationships has embraced tendentious, historically recent interpretations claiming the Bible says life begins at conception. And the same intellectual habits and social structures that led yesterday’s white evangelical community to ignore the civil rights movement, oppose the feminist movement, and drag its feet for far too long in the face of environmental destruction are still in place today — and they shape how evangelical leaders are thinking about homosexuality. In reality, the older generation’s opposition to gay marriage tells us more about their allegiance to social conservatism than it does about their allegiance to the Bible.

Jonathan Dudley is a graduate of Calvin College, and Yale Divinity School, and is currently an medical student at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (6)
  1. Ed says - Posted: July 8, 2011

    I think this article should be passed to the Pope and all the religious leaders who opposed same sex marriage and think little of divorce or child molestation.

  2. rhinopoker says - Posted: July 8, 2011

    Doesn’t every Ivy League grad let you know in the first sentence that they are and they are smarter then you. But that is what every liberal believes anyway.

    I do not oppose gay marriage, the real winners will be the divorce attorneys and courts, they just got a whole new marketplace to work in.

  3. Janice Eastburn says - Posted: July 8, 2011

    Thank you, Mr. Dudley, for the most articulate, well-reasoned, and rational religious argument I have heard yet in this “debate”. Too many of Jesus’ followers forget that he embraced all people, not just the “politically popular” of his time. They are also quick to use the bible, erroneously, to deny others the rights that they enjoy without question (i.e. marriage). As you correctly pointed out, the bible was and is used to deny the rights of women (especially over decisions involving their own bodies). The bible has also historically been misused to condone slavery, child abuse, and wife beating. Are these practices Jesus would have embraced? Bottom line, Jesus said “Love One Another As I Have Loved You”. He did not follow that statement with a list of exceptions. Thank you again for your excellent article.

  4. the conservation robot says - Posted: July 8, 2011

    I agree with the author. But they stopped short of the biggest issue here.

    Religious texts have no place in government and policy. You can’t use your book and the consequences of your belief to force anyone to do/not do something.
    The religious right does not understand this.

  5. DAVID DEWITT says - Posted: July 8, 2011

    The question you have to answer is being gay a choice or is it an genetic inherited condition? now the general public has the idea that these folks have made a choice. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Some day we will be smart enough to tell the truth. Until then shame on you.

  6. Janice Eastburn says - Posted: July 8, 2011

    @Conservation Robot: I absolutely agree with you. Marriage is LEGALLY a civil insititution, rather than a religious one and this is just one example of the separation of church and state on which this country stands. I think Mr. Dudley was simply trying to address the irrationality of the religious argument of using the Bible to oppose gay marriage. To that end, I think he did an excellent job.
    @David: I agree with your sentiment, however, at one time interracial marriages were against the law and I don’t believe one could say a person is genetically predisposed to marry someone of a different ethnicity, so, therefore it could be seen as a “choice”. Any two CONSENTING ADULTS should have the legal right to marry regardless of the “genetics” vs. “choice” argument. Love is love. Committment is committment.
    Peace to all!