Janie-Bug (changeling0203) wrote in marriage_debate,

"Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints"

I wrote this last year. I had to write an 8-10 page paper on a controversial subject and argue both sides, and then give my opinion at the end. Of course I chose gay rights.

Homosexuality, perhaps one of the most controversial subjects of all time, has been debated as far back in history as biblical times. This issue and whether it is moral, immoral, or neither has been debated by Christians, Jews, atheists, and politicians alike, but we are no closer to an answer than we were when the question first surfaced thousands of years ago. Many people turn to the Bible or other holy scriptures to find the answers while others look to political figures or to themselves. Religion has long been trying to decide whether or not it condones homosexual practices, and politics and government have been trying equally as hard and as long to please both sides of the spectrum of support and discouragement, though there is little room for a middle ground.

As long as there has been debate on the morality of homosexuality, gays and lesbians have felt targeted by prejudice and bigotry. The purpose of my paper is to uncover whether or not there is such grounds for these prejudices against or the support for these individuals who are living a lifestyle controversial to the one usually dictated by society, religion, and government. Is homosexuality immoral? And if so, should it be outlawed to share a bed with a partner of the same sex or for two people of the same gender to marry? The American government continues to try to separate Church from State, but the line between the two is blurred especially in the topic of sodomy and gay and lesbian marriages.

By the end of this paper, I hope to uncover the reasons behind the general hatred or disgust being directed toward homosexuals and whether or not these viewpoints are founded or unfounded. Humanity has dedicated much of its time and art to uncovering the secrets of love - who we love, why we love, what we love, and how we love - , but few people have gone into such depth to answer the question of why we hate who we hate. It is merely taken for granted that we do. It is a subject that most people deny and sometimes forget that they participate in and a subject that all would like to disappear. The only way to make the subject of hate disappear is if we analyze it, critique it, study it, and, ultimately, pick it apart and reveal it for what it is - useless, hindering, and primitive. I am writing this paper to discover the motives of why people hate and fear and why people will go to such lengths and through such trials in the face of adversity in order to love.

Discrimination toward homosexuality can be traced back to the Bible, where many quotes in the Old Testament - specifically in the books of Corinthians, Leviticus, and Timothy - prohibit homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah were also translated and interpreted by Albertus Magnus as a teaching against homosexuality. However, in the New Testament there are very few references to this practice.

Over the years, homosexuality was looked down upon. But in the 1930’s and ‘40’s and Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came into power, they began to target the gays as well as Jews, Catholics, people of African descent, the mentally and physically disabled, Gypsies, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

And recently, between the years 1992 to 1994, Out Magazine published 164 of the hate crimes that have been documented against gays and lesbians in nearly every state1.

The Bible has been one of the main sources for excuses to discriminate against homosexuality. In the Book of Corinthians 6:9, the Bible reports:
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Here, homosexuals are put into the same category as adulterers, prostitutes, drunks, and thieves. It also asserts that homosexuals are not in God’s favor. In the Book of Leviticus, we are given several laws that forbid homosexuality and the punishments necessary for such crimes. In Lev. 18:22 the Bible tells us “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And again in Lev. 20:13, a punishment for this crime is given:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Once again, the Book of Timothy 1:10 lists homosexuals among other criminals, but, unlike the Book of Leviticus, specifies that only practicing homosexuals are to be looked down upon and not those who abstain.
“The unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most famous teachings in the Bible against the practice of homosexuality, and while be discussed more at length later on in the paper.

One of the most adamant in their views against homosexuality is the Westboro Baptist Church located in Topeka, Kansas, lead by Reverend Fred Phelps. On his website - http://www.godhatesfags.com/ - Phelps answers the question of why is so opposed to homosexuality, and gives links to newspaper articles depicting gays as child rapists and murderers, and also to Bible quotes similar to the ones seen above. In his articles and lectures, he refers to gays and lesbians as “fags” and faggots” - a derogatory term for homosexuals. However, Phelps denies accusations that he is intentionally trying to aggravate members of the gay community and their supporters using the method of petty name-calling. The term “faggot”, Phelps says, means a firebrand. It is used for kindling and fuels fire. It is also a common metaphor used in the Bible, specifically in Amos 4:11. Phelps claims that, like a faggot, “ ... a sodomite fuels the fires of God’s wrath.” Phelps also uses this term because he explains that it is a “metaphor chosen by the Holy Ghost to describe a group of people who BURN in their lust one toward another, and who FUEL God's wrath.”

The Westboro Baptist Church has traveled out of state to picket the funerals of gays and lesbians who have been killed by hate crimes. He has picketed the funerals of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming and Eddie “Gwen” Araujo in California. He claims that this is not to appear cold-hearted, but to warn the living of the dangers of their sins. “It’s the perfect time to warn them of things to come,” he says, because their minds are on life, death, heaven, and hell. Instead of being uncompassionate by picketing funerals, they feel it is uncompassionate not to “warn” people of the sins of sodomy.

To further his point, he sites the story of King Josiah, who dug up the graves of sodomites and burned the bodies, only to have God proclaim him the best king since Solomon. Compared to Josiah, Phelps says, the WBC members have barely done anything by picketing funerals. He also quotes the Gospel of Luke 9:60: “Jesus said unto him, let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” Jesus said this to a man who had recently lost a son. He ordered him to not go to the funeral and bury him, but instead to preach the word of God. To emphasis his point, Phelps says, “Hypocrites in this modern era, who think they are smarter than Christ, would open their mouths in amazement at Christ's lack of respect for a poor mourning man whose father had just died.”

The WBC has often been accused of “preaching hate”, and Reverend Phelps has admitted to this2. He professes that the Bible preaches hate and that God hates people. The only chance people have of going to Heaven is found through repentance, but without that the chances are nonexistent. Phelps claims he tells people what they need to hear, which, oftentimes, is what they do not want to hear. He believes that people do not need to hear that God will love them the way they are and that there is no reason to change or repent.

Carl F. Horowitz, author of the article “Society Does Not Need to Accept Homosexuality” which can be found in the book “Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints” believes that gays are trying to antagonize heterosexuals through forcing the population to accept them. During the national gay march in Washington in October of 1987, Jeff Levi, the spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said:
“ ... we are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right - as heterosexual Americans already have - to see government and society affirm our lives. ... until our relationships are recognized in the law - through domestic partner legislation or the definition of beneficiaries, for example - until we are provided with the same financial incentives in tax law and government programs to affirm our family relationships, then we will not have achieved equality in American society.”3

Horowitz also says that they are trying to antagonize people through public displays of affection, the goal to make heterosexuals uncomfortable.

Homosexuals have applied for civil rights protection, but many argue that they do not qualify for this protection. In order for a certain group to gain civil rights protection, the group has to show that they have the five qualifications necessary: “(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination (2) based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational (3) causing a substantial injury (4) to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status (5) which has no element of moral fault.”

The first qualification excludes gays from civil rights because anti-gay discrimination is only a couple of isolated instances. Everyone has been a victim of discrimination at one point of time in their life, whether it be hairstyle, skin color, choice of dress, or religion. And to say that gays should be given specials rights based on a few isolated instances would be equal to giving people with a certain fashion choice equal rights.

The second qualification does not apply to homosexuals, either. Sexual behavior tells more about a person’s personality than skin color. Also, even consensual, private homosexual behavior can have spillover effects into the public because it can spread diseases and thus becomes self-destructive. This makes discrimination neither arbitrary nor irrational and the law should not coerce people into ignoring what they believe to be common sense, their own moral convictions, or medical knowledge. Allowing homosexuals to have special rights would also cause disrespect for those minorities who deserve those rights.

The third qualification for civil rights protection is “causing substantial injury”. Homosexuals are everywhere. They live in nice houses, bad neighborhoods, the ghettos, the suburbs, they have jobs in offices, restaurants, the acting field, the music industry. They have good jobs and bad; they are poor and rich. They haven’t been pushed down into one law status, as the African-American community had been for over two centuries.

Homosexuals also have not proven that they have the fourth qualification: “ ... to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status ... ” Some homosexuals have been able to become heterosexual, making homosexuality not unchangeable or immutable. Most psychiatrists believe that the genetic explanation isn’t true, that it is, as Dr. Charles Socarides says, not “inevitable”4. And, whether or not homosexuality is unchangeable or not, it alone is not grounds for civil rights protection.

Homosexuality is also often believed to have elements of moral fault. While there is no moral or immoral to being black or white, many people believe there is something immoral in being homosexual. The Supreme Court even stated: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millenia of moral teaching.”

Another argument against homosexuality is that it is not normal sexual behavior. There has been no strong, published proof that homosexuality is geneticall or prenatally determined. John W. Money - a Ph.D, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine, and the Director of the Psychohormonal Research Institute - says, “Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child's psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth.”5 There is also a theory that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Many homosexuals have also become heterosexual with the right motivation, but only if they were unhappy with their lifestyle to begin with6.

The Alfred C. Kinsey study argues that homosexuality is a mental disorder7. 43% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had 500 or more partners, while 28% had estimated at around 1,000 or more partners. This could be linked with a deep dissatisfaction in their lives or a destructive hedonism. Homosexual men are also six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men and 25% to 33% of homosexuals are alcoholics, while only 7% of the rest of the population are. These statistics are not a result of discrimination because in places where homosexual acceptance is higher, the detrimental effects increase. Over time, the more acceptance there is, the worse the effects become (i.e. disease). Dr. Joseph Nicolosi said, in the February 1989 issue of The California Psychologist:
"Many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 APA ruling did not resolve the issue--it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation."

Dr. Elizabeth Moberly says that the cause for homosexuality lies in early difficulty, often with the same-sex parent, such as separation or emotional unavailability. It creates a need for love from people of the same sex.

Same-sex marriage is argued against, as well. One of the arguments for this is the argument that, traditionally, marriage is the union of one man and one woman for legal, social, economical, and spiritual union. If this is changed, it could change everything about marriage restrictions, like age limitations, blood relatives, and the restrictions to human beings. Legalizing same-sex marriage would turn the state against those with traditional beliefs. Homosexuality was never considered by most of the population as morally good. A minority should also not be able to change society’s moral standing. It has also been argued that homosexuals have been trying to impose their views on heterosexuals, not the other way around.

There are those, however, that support the acceptance of homosexuality. There are hate crimes every year committed by people discriminating against homosexuals. 7,000 hate crimes have been reported to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force8. Teens and college students are being murdered for being “different”. Society also often portrays being gay as wrong, disgraceful, and/or immoral. Everyone in America, and, for that matter, the entire world, deserves to be treated with respect. But homosexuals are constantly being disrespected in the form of derogatory jokes, slurs, rumors, and hate-crimes.

Homosexuals are also in need of civil rights protection, some people have argued. Social structures that are supposed to make sure people are being treated fairly are not adequately protecting gay people. As stated before, a group that feels it is in need of civil rights protection must have the five qualifications. They must have a history of having been disadvantaged by society, and they need to have evidence that the disadvantages were not because of the groups inability or because the group is dangerous. Gays and lesbians meet both of these rules. Lesbians and gay men have also lost or been denied jobs because of sexual orientation, and, in a capitalist society, they need jobs to survive. Gay teachers have also been fired because they were either open about their sexuality, hid their sexuality, and/or because they were socializing with other gay people away from work. Employers justify firing them because they say they are immoral, and thus unfit to work. They also say that homosexuality goes against nature, but this is false because homosexuality has been observed among birds. Also, many moral and social leads were and are gay. Employers who have fired gays based on their sexual orientation also say that it goes against God’s law. But a group of people who believe that God disapproves of another group is not sufficient proof that the second group is a threat to the workplace or to society in general. The idea of being homosexual, in fact, is relatively recent9. Gays are also seen as mentally unbalanced, but this is not true. They are often very stable and recognized as model workers. There have also been complaints that they may disturb the workplace because co-workers dislike them, but this is rarely supported with any actual evidence and, even if it is true, it would just be an excuse to discriminate. Being disliked by co-workers has nothing to do with a gay’s or lesbian’s capabilities at doing a job.

Homosexual relationships have almost always been looked down upon for one reason or another. Homosexuals are said to be unable to form meaningful relationships. This is a false rumor. They are capable of forming strong, lasting relationships, just like heterosexuals. Homosexuals are also not a threat to the traditional family. A common misconception is that gay people will try to “recruit” children into this lifestyle or sexually assault them. However, almost all adults who become sexually involved with minors are heterosexual men10. Another stereotype of gays and lesbians is that they make bad role models for children because they do not fit traditional gender roles. Also, children of a gay couple will not grow up to be gay. This rumor, other than being untrue, also implies that being gay is bad. There has also been no evidence of this.

There have also been some double standards when it comes to public displays of affection. Some heterosexuals become uneasy when they see gays dancing together, eating in a private booth, hanging out in bars, hugging each other, going to prom together, etc. Men have been arrested for hitting on men and have been convicted11.

There are rumors surrounding the ethics of giving gays civil rights protection that should be put to rest. The first is that it does not matter if homosexuality is changeable or not, it is still being discriminated against nonetheless. Civil rights laws also will not encourage the spread of AIDS. And the right to discriminate does not override the right for people to associate with whomever they wish. Civil rights laws will not end all prejudice or discrimination, but it will help America to become a society dedicated to equal rights and justice.

Christians should accept homosexuality, argues Alice Ogden Bellis. Bellis, a Christian woman, was once opposed to homosexuality but, after re-evaluating her beliefs and searching for evidence against and for homosexuality, changed her viewpoints. Bellis found there to be very few references in the New Testament related to homosexuality. One of the quotes she found was from the Gospel of Mark 7:15, reading, “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him.” Bellis translated this to cover homosexuality as well, meaning that sodomy cannot defile any person.

Bellis also interpreted the Book of Ruth to be an example of God’s never-ending love for His children. Ruth was a Moabite, thus an enemy of the Israelites. In the Books of Ezra (9:12, 10:1-44) and Nehemiah (13:23-30) there are clear negative feelings towards foreign women. People descended from Moabites could only be an Israelite until after ten generations had passed, but Ruth’s grandson was David, making him only the third generation. David, according to the Book of Deuteronomy, was not legally a member of the Jewish community. However, Ruth was welcomed into the Israelite community, showing God’s infinite love for all people, including foreigners and Moabites. Ruth contradicts Deuteronomy, proving that the Bible has to constantly be re-analyzed and re-interpreted. The earth has been proved to be spherical, thus forcing people to re-evaluate their beliefs into accepting that the Bible is not the authoritative on science. The Book of Ruth, says Bellis, is a good example of re-evaluation.

There are also Bible quotes in support of diversity and homosexuality, which can be found in Gal. 3:28. This passage reads, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” This passage means that everyone, no matter how different they are, are all one people and are all united in God’s eyes.

The story of David and Jonathan can also be interpreted as a story in support of homosexuality. In 1 Samuel 18:1 and 1 Samuel 18:3, the Bible reads:
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

This passage can be interpreted as revealing an affair between David and Jonathan, one that was full of equal love. Later, in 1 Samuel 20:30, this is clarified when it says:
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

Here, Saul is belittling Jonathan for loving David more than other women. He attributes this to sexual confusion and calls he and his mother perverse. Once more, in 1 Samuel 20:41, the passage reads: " ... they [David and Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another ... " This passage could be interpreted as a deep bond of friendship, or a deep romantic love. But then, in 2 Samuel 1:26, Jonathan dies and David is heartbroken. “[After Jonathan's death, David said,] “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

Another popular story to quote by anti-gay organizations is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, Sodom wasn’t connected with homosexuality until the late twelfth century by a man named Albertus Magnus. Assuming that this story is about homosexuality and not about an inhospitable people, then the warning is against homosexual rape and not homosexuality in general. Rape is about power. The Sodomites did not want to rape the men out of sexual pleasure, but rather to humiliate them by treating them like women. In the Book of Genesis 13:13 and 18:20 it says, “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous.” These two passages are extremely vague. The sins could be any multitude of things, from adultery to idolatry to stealing to lying. Homosexuality in the Bible may also be looked down upon because the sex does not produce children. At the time when the Bible ordered the Israelites to be “fruitful and multiply”, it was during a time when the Israelites needed to expand. It was not another insult toward homosexuals.
Jesus, in the Gospel of Matthew 22:39, quoted the Book of Leviticus when he was asked the question of which was the greatest commandment. He answered that it was to love thy neighbor and thy God. Jesus is also well-known for including outcasts in his circle of friends and love, such as “bad” women, Samaritans, and tax collectors. If he were living today, he would most likely include gays and lesbians instead of following the example of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.
Homosexuals should be allowed to have same-sex marriages for a multitude of reasons. They would gain all the legal benefits that heterosexual married couples have. They would have mutual financial support, and alimony and an equitable division of property. They would also be allowed state-provided benefits, such as health insurance, tax breaks, preferential immigration treatment, tenancy succession rights, etc. Marriage gains society’s support of two people as a couple, while “life-partner” does not. It symbolizes a spiritual, physical, emotional, and a long-term intimacy. Same-sex commitments are just as serious as opposite ones and forcing homosexuals not to marry is to force one’s beliefs on them. Giving them the right to marry is not forcing their beliefs on the more “traditional” people of the world. The decision to marry belongs to the two consenting individuals and not to the government. The same arguments against same-sex marriages were also made against biracial marriages up until as recently as 1967. Same-sex marriages would not be considered anti-family because marriage creates family. Not allowing them to marry would be anti-family.

I believe that society should accept homosexuality. Many anti-gay activists do not hesitate to quote the Bible when it tells them what to hate and what to shun, but they choose to disregard one of the cornerstone teachings that Jesus gave us, which is to love thy neighbor as thyself. He did not say, thy straight neighbor or thy white neighbor, but thy neighbor. It is all right to dislike people, but if one follows the Bible they should remember that Jesus taught us to love our enemies as well as our friends. He would not condone discrimination of any kind. The Book of Ruth, as well, teaches of God’s undiscriminatory love of His children when the Israelites accepted her even though she was a Moabite.

I am very much against stereotypes of any kind. I believe that they will ultimately narrow our range of thinking. They will disallow us to think for ourselves and make our own opinions and, when that happens, we will not be able to see each other for who we really are, rather we will see each other for who insulting stories tell us we are.

In my personal experience, I have found that the negative stereotypes given to gays and lesbians does not apply to my friends and family. Ultimately, I cannot look at society’s viewpoints to make the decision of where my support lies, I have to look within myself, and what I have found is the doubt that God measures on a human, mortal scale. I cannot profess to know what God’s ultimate plans are, but I believe that he measures around a person’s heart to decide where they go when they die.

But on the topic of whether sodomy is natural or unnatural, moral or immoral, I have mixed opinions. I believe that the act and desire of sodomy natural and unnatural. In my mind, there are two types of natural: God’s and Nature’s. Nature designed sex to be used for procreation and not for enjoyment. However, God designed sex for both procreation and/or as a method for two consenting people to become spiritually as well as physically joined. Homosexuality meet this qualification as long as it is done between two people who are in love, but not necessarily of the opposite gender. Sodomy between a homosexual couple would be no more unnatural than it would be between a heterosexual married couple.

I believe, too, that the act of sodomy is not immoral. It is a preference at best, a fetish at worst. Anal and oral sex is nearly the same as role-playing, toys, or positions. But if it is immoral between two consenting, adult homosexuals, then it should also be immoral between two consenting, adult heterosexuals. There should be no double standards.

I disagree with giving homosexuals civil rights protection, because, as presented before, they do not qualify. They should get equal treatment that heterosexuals get from both the government and from individuals.

One of the equal treatments that homosexuals should be allowed to have is marriage, because marriage is a sacred union between two consenting adults who love each other. It is not a threat to families, but creates families. It is true it is untraditional, but untraditional is not necessarily bad, it’s just untraditional. Many people say that marriage is for procreation, which is a viewpoint that I very much disagree with. Children are not necessary to make a marriage legitimate. But, however, if marriage is for procreation, then heterosexual, childless marriages should be equally frowned upon along with homosexual marriages. Thus, marriages proving to be childless after one year should be looked down upon. This would mean that Pat Buchanan’s, Bob Dole’s, and Newt Gingrich’s marriages are to be considered no longer legitimate.

In order to preserve world peace, we need to be more accepting of one another, especially of the people who live with us. The Supreme Court has said that, “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millenia of moral teaching.” Maybe we need to cast it aside then, because age does not make a teaching right. The human race has prided itself on its ability to reason and to reflect, while at the same time looking forward to the future. We need to look forward now and re-evaluate our views in order to expand them to include every citizen of this planet in the hopes that, someday, we can achieve the worldwide peace and love we have been striving for since man first learned to think for himself.


FOOTNOTES

1 God Hates Fred Phelps
http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/hatecrimes.html

2 Why do you preach hate?
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html#Hate

3 Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor
“Society Does Not Need to Accept Homosexuality”
by Carl F. Horowitz
page 72

4 Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor
“Homosexuals Do Not Need Civil Rights Protection”
by Roger J. Magnuson
page 94

5 “Homosexuality Is Not Normal Sexual Behavior”
Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: Human Sexuality
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=12&ste=17&docNum=X3010145222&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225

6 “Homosexuality Is Not Normal Sexual Behavior”
Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: Human Sexuality
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=12&ste=17&docNum=X3010145222&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225

7 “Homosexuality Is Not Normal Sexual Behavior”
Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: Human Sexuality
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=12&ste=17&docNum=X3010145222&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225

8 Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor
“Society Should Accept Homosexuality”
by Jeff Peters
page 64

9 Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor
“Homosexuals Need Civil Rights Protection”
by Matthew A. Coles
page 80

10 Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor
“Homosexuals Need Civil Rights Protection”
by Matthew A. Coles
page 83

11 Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor
“Homosexuals Need Civil Rights Protection”
by Matthew A. Coles
page 83


BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
David Bender & Bruno Leone, Series Editors
William Dudley, Book Editor


2. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
Gale Group http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC;$sessionid$OPOXFPQAAEHRJJOBNJRQAAA?locID=berk58225

1. “Society Should Allow Same-Sex Marriage”
Ralph Wedgwood
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: Homosexuality http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=19&ste=17&docNum=X3010143228&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225

2. “Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legal”
Robert H. Knight
Source Database: At Issue: Gay Marriage
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=15&ste=17&docNum=X3010014209&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225

3. “Christians Should Accept Homosexuality”
Alice Ogden Bellis
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: Homosexuality
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=5&ste=17&docNum=X3010143224&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225

4. “Homosexuality Is Not Normal Sexual Behavior”
Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: Human Sexuality
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=12&ste=17&docNum=X3010145222&bConts=8143&txb=%2522Homosexuality%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=berk58225


3. http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
Reverend Fred Phelps


4. Holy Bible, King James Version
Multiple authors, many anonymous


5. San Francisco Chronicle

1. SACRAMENTO -- Gay Marriage Bill Change Survives
Amendment makes veto likely
Tuesday, August 13, 1996
Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

2. House Votes Against Gay Marriages
Final tally is 342 to 67 after passionate debate
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Saturday, July 13, 1996

3. Gay Rights Bill Back In Congress
Senate rejected it by just 1 vote last year
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 11, 1997

I know it's long, but I think it's pretty educational, too.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 8 comments