From The Lead blog, I see that the Star Tribune has an article asking “Why should I accept same-sex couples?” They chose the responses of Rev. Lisa Cressman, an Episcopalian priest who answers quite well. Still, there are a few cases where I’d answer differently.
1) Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted because they thought homosexuality was wrong? Some may think that accepting homosexuality is innovative and progressive, but others say abandoning our previous norm may be presumptuous on our part. In other words, our ancestors might have been right, and we might be wrong.
Our ancestors thought no such thing. Our ancestors did not even have the word “homosexuality,” nor did they understand the modern concept of “sexual orientation.” The most we can say is that some of our ancestors – the ones who wrote the Hebrew Testament at least – thought that penetration between men was against the will of God. That’s quite different from saying that same-sex marriage is immoral.
Richard Fellows, who blogs at Paul and his Co-workers, has a good breakdown of how our Greco-Roman ancestors understood sexuality and how our early Christian ancestors felt about it. Neither side can be said to think that “homosexuality is wrong” in the way we understand the phrase.
2) Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?
This line of questioning has always baffled me. As an evolutionist, I do not believe that purpose is a useful way of finding natural morality. In an evolutionary understanding, function follows form. Purpose is something that humans assign to the form after the fact.
At some point in history, a proto-giraffe was born with a long neck. It must have been useful for reaching leaves, but also in getting a higher vantage point to see predators and (for males) in mating combat. None of these functions were assigned to the giraffe’s neck by nature, and we can hardly say that the neck has only one purpose and all the other uses are sinful.
Would anybody follow this line of reasoning to other aspects of the human body? We clearly have an omnivore’s digestive system, but are we willing to say that a meat heavy diet or strict vegetarianism are sinful lifestyles?
3) It is no secret that the human sex drive is a lot stronger than is needed for reproduction. Do we just give into those desires, or do we try to control them?
Obviously we try to control our drives and emotions. We learn at an early age that we have to control anger, jealousy and other emotions. We Americans have learned that the basic drive to eat can lead us to consuming more than our bodies can process or consuming things that are ultimately unhealthy, hence our expanding national waistline.
But saying this isn’t actually an argument. If I were to tell you that you must restrain your emotional affection for your children, I’m sure you’d insist that I give a reason why you should. How are displays of affection harmful? And so I return the question: so what? Why should some couples control their love and attraction, simply because they are both of the same gender?
And of course it should be said that same-gender marriage is more than an outlet for the sex drive, just as heteronormative marriage is more than just about producing children. The fact that we have to keep pointing out that this is more than just a matter of men having sex with other men is disquieting. It says bad things about our understanding of married relationships.
[summation]4. Adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. So homosexuality?
I think this just goes back to my above points. Rev. Cressman answers this in a straght-forward way.
5)Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted. Why is it going to work this time when all the other appearances failed? Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Why should we go down this road again when many, probably a majority, will always see homosexuality as going against nature, not normal? Can’t we learn from the past that prevalent homosexuality will not work in society?
I have no examples of “prevalent homosexuality” making an appearance. As Richard Fellows points out in the link above, the ancient idea of sexuality is very different from the modern idea. I honestly don’t see a way to make a historical argument for or against gay marriage without comparing apples to oranges, and everybody knows how much I love historical arguments.
As for the idea that changes require consensus, this is obviously false. In America, major changes in our society have frequently been unpopular. Segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were all popular in certain regions. Contrary to Gov. Christie’s comments, a referendum on civil rights would not have created equality between the races.
Further, this is an issue of rights. In our system, the purpose of a right is to protect the minority from the majority. If what we’re arguing for is unpopular, then that just means we’re doing it right. Requiring majority consensus on a matter of rights completely misses the point.
Because it’s important to teach one 
