Reasoning through prejudice
In the past few weeks, many editorials in the Daily Campus have focused on prejudice towards homosexuals. I applaud the prolonged debate, stemming from an act of homophobic vandalism that occurred recently on this campus (where was everybody during Proposition 2?).
These issues tamper with the quality of many American lives, concerning homosexuals. And so it should be approached respectfully, objectively, and endlessly, until an agreement can be found and a greater awareness achieved. However, I have still yet to hear a valid argument from those exhibiting prejudice towards gay people.
I have heard the argument that supporting an amendment to ban gay marriage is not an example of prejudice. Prejudice, need I remind you, is a generalized attitude toward members of a group. A stereotype is a generalized belief about a group. I believe both concepts are incorporated into the reasoning behind prohibiting gay marriage in the United States.
In his 2004 bid for re-election, President George W. Bush openly endorsed a Constitutional amendment, which would prohibit gay marriage at the federal level. Bush reasoned that “marriage can not be severed from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.” Strange how most amendments exist to expand and protect our civil liberties, yet Bush proposes bringing discrimination back into the Constitution of the United States based on absolutely no factual evidence. So let’s examine this rationale at the religious, social and cultural level and how exactly gay marriages supposedly weaken “the good influence of society.”
My attempt to examine religion objectively is not to exude prejudice toward Christians. Reality being, Christians are also divided on this matter. Professor George Henson pointed out to me that there is a liberal denomination, the United Church of Christ, which allows ministers to perform same-sex marriages. Their slogan reads “No matter who you are, no matter where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.” It is also known that the Episcopal Church and other mainstream Protestant churches are showing more tolerance for gay unions.
Many conservative Christians show religious intolerance for homosexuality, citing the authority of Scripture. It is no secret that some literal passages in the Bible have either been debunked or not applicable in today’s society. For example, two passages in the Old Testament imply homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The Reverend Canon Thomas Conley of the Episcopal Church observed “these passages come from the section of Leviticus (chapters 17-26) known in biblical studies as the Holiness Code. It is a code of conduct, rules, ethical practices, and religious orders that Moses received from God to frame the religious and communal life of Israel in the midst of growing nationalities and increasing diversity, ethnically and religiously. The problem with using the Holiness Code as a prohibition against homosexuality is on shaky ground because we do not accept the rest of the Holiness Code as mandatory for Christians today, like being put to death for committing adultery (Leviticus 20:10).”
Those who reason for Biblical authority should explain why some passages apply in our culture today and why some do not. I respect that one’s relationship with God can be based on faith and the history of religion, not empirical evidence however. But is this enough to argue for a Constitutional amendment which basically tells Americans it is okay to discriminate against gays based on certain prejudices? Currently, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any less in quality than heterosexuals, just as scientists could not prove the Aryan race to be superior.
Furthermore, current research shows there is no empirical evidence to support children from same-sex couples turn out worse than children from straight couples. Also, it is not proven that children from gay couples will ultimately become gay themselves. The question I pose is do these children face ridicule because both their parents are the same sex? A scary thought when wondering just how far prejudice can reach.
It is argued that the institution of marriage has traditionally only recognized the union between one man and one female. Biology and religion has taught us that ultimately the union between man and woman is procreation, a beautifully complex process. Same-sex couples are excluded from these perspectives.
However, there is debate that if homosexuals could be reversed in preference and entered into straight unions to procreate, would that further aid in overpopulation and diminishing resources? I was not a disciplined student in ecology when we covered population growth and regulation. Perhaps I contradict myself this once to speak based on my emotions. But whenever I go to China to visit my mom, I feel almost certain some children in our region would gladly be raised by a gay couple with excellent parenting skills, as opposed to dying on the streets.
It is true, not all gay couples are fit to raise children. But the rights to procreate have been long abused by straight couples. We now live in a world where fear, terror, and prejudice are prevalent, and our children must suffer as a result. Most of us are fortunate to know we will never live on less than a dollar a day. We come from the land of the plenty. But there are thousands of children in this world, where adequate care and resources are frugal. If they have the chance to survive through adoption, which involves a strict process to determine fit parents, then why shouldn’t gay couples adopt?
This does not apply to same-sex couples having children of their own, however this is gone about. But the reality still exists that there is no evidence to suggest children from same-sex marriages are reduced in the quality of their lives. If a gay couple spent decades living out their relationship with respect and commitment while raising successful daughters and sons, what is the problem?
I do not believe it is right to use religious view points in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. To ignore current empirical evidence on what we know about homosexuality is to assume that an opposing view point is not credible and comes from unintelligent sources. Just because an opposite argument does not confirm already existing biases, if the argument is just and supported, it is worth considering, especially when dealing with human rights.
It is not my intent to make one side wrong, the other right. This is a waste of time. Instead of right and wrong, I like to think about it in terms of what works and what doesn’t work. Banning gay marriage seems to work for the majority, but not for the gay community. If we supported gay marriage, there would be many who would fervently oppose. But how would the straight community really be affected by this, when there is no proof same-sex marriages degrade “the good influence of society?” Even if it is an abomination to the Lord, how can one’s personal faith be degraded by this?
It is not religion that causes prejudice. It is not our culture that causes prejudice. It is the faults within ourselves that lead to such misguided attitudes and beliefs. It is quite easy to judge someone based on existing prejudices, rather than taking the time and mental effort to get to know them. Most of us hold certain prejudices and stereotypes already. Greater self-awareness helps us rise above this natural tendency, which leaves more room for deliberative thinking. Currently, open homosexuality is becoming more common in our society. Perhaps mere exposure and familiarity to the gay community will help increase tolerance. But from what I have discovered, prejudice and our own petty discomforts are never good reasons for homosexual intolerance.
Diane Line is a senior psychology major. She can be contacted at [email protected].
