Homosexuality and Religion - Term Paper Example

?Religion and Homosexuality Introduction The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) protects rights of people on the basis of race, color, sex,and national origin. But there is another provision in the declaration which is not clear when it says “other status”. This has been interpreted by gay rights proponents to refer to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Human beings have inherent rights that States – and the Church – have the responsibility to protect. These rights are innate in them from the time they are born and no state can deprive them of such fundamental rights (Yecies 790). The question is: Is being gay or homosexual a fundamental and inherent right that States or the Church has to protect? This is a question for many theologians and scientists to debate. If being gay or homosexual is an inherent right then the Church must protect homosexuals and permit same-sex marriage. But as they say, it is open for debate. One thing is certain though – homosexuals are human beings and they have the right to be a part of the church as homosexuals. The UDHR espoused “a Kantian right to equality and moral autonomy for every human person into the circle of the family”, and according to this notion of human rights, there is equality in power and responsibility between the family’s adult members no matter the sexual orientation. “In the human rights scheme, gender hierarchy is anathema” (Raday 211). Although, the Bible along with other monotheistic religions promotes equality, it does not espouse gender hierarchy, particularly within family. There is now the conflict between the concept of the patriarchal family and the rights of members to freedom of choice of same-sex couples. While family members have individual human rights, society has fundamental freedom which is accompanied by traditional values (Raday 212). Traditional values point to the Bible teaching “man made for woman” concept. Again, we do not know how and when homosexuality started. There are explanations but they are supported by theories. They may hold facts but both sides are reasonable in pushing their opinions and theories. First, a definition of terms must be in order. The concept of homosexual by the different churches, like Catholic, Protestant, and other denominations, vary in some sense. Homosexual or heterosexual is not defined in the Bible as we are all members of humanity saved by the cross of Christ. In Christ, we become perfect and fully human but Christ’s work has yet to be completed. In other words, the term homosexual or heterosexual has a religious connotation. Homosexuals and heterosexuals do not defined themselves on the basis of their biological make up, or cultural orientation. To be homosexual or heterosexual is itself a conduct which is the result of factors beyond our control. A homosexual, that includes gay or lesbian, has sexual thoughts towards persons of the same sexual orientation (Bradshaw 120). Main Body Laws on homosexuality have traditionally been governed by promoting traditional morals. Gays have been considered “other” (Kershaw 559). This means gays are not considered the same with women, the disabled, or racial minority, or they are different. In the United States, even if federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and gender, there is no law that explicitly protects homosexuals (qtd. in Kershaw 559). On the question of homosexual’s fundamental right, there are pros and cons to the argument that being gay is a fundamental right but sometimes it depends on what country you belong, i.e. according to the cultural orientation of that country. The UN encourages States to protect their citizens of fundamental rights. What is clear is that it cannot force a State to protect homosexuals of their “fundamental right”. What does the church, the Catholic Church in particular and other Protestant denominations, say about it? They can be divided about the issue. True, the Catholic Church and other monotheistic religions have condemned homosexuality, along with the other similar “personality” (lesbians, bisexuals, or transgender) and have openly said that it is for natural law. This natural law, concept which originated from medieval times, states that it is immoral that individuals of the same sex engage in sexual act. Sexual act should be performed by opposite-sex partners to procreate alone (Kershaw 556). Many Americans still believe the “natural law” concept but there is a division among the people in the belief of procreative and nonprocreative sex, while others do not approve of homosexual sex (Kershaw 557). Gay people, or homosexuals, are human beings and are entitled to rights inherent in them including the right of personhood. The right to be a person and to be a member of a religious denomination is different from the right to be homosexual. There are many points for and against this concept that can be discussed here. The Catholic Church still opposes the right of homosexuals, for example, in same-sex marriage. This means gay people do not have the inherent right similar to the right of race, color of skin, or origin. This view can be partly justified since the origin of homosexuality is still unknown despite explanations from various disciplines like biology, psychology, and sociology. Some questions remained unanswered however due to religious biases from Judeo-Christian tradition. One argument for the recognition of homosexuals, vis-a-vis his fundamental right, is the theory that being a homosexual is a “distinct category of person” (Kershaw 557), therefore he is entitled to the rights others are entitled to including the right to be homosexual. If the State recognizes this right, then it has to allow same-sex marriage. If the church recognizes this “distinct category of person” and that any “person” has the right to be a part of the church, then it must allow what other persons are entitled to. But since the church, the Catholic Church, does not allow same sex marriage, it also follows that it does not recognize the homosexual as a “distinct category of person”. Freedom of religion and human rights do have conflicts. In a 2009 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief said that discrimination in the name of religious belief is sometimes supported by laws that discriminate against women and members of the LGBT. We still live in patriarchal society but in trying to achieve equality, states use religion to make laws espousing the traditional concept of patriarchy (Raday 213). The law provided by the Constitution of the United States is different from the law of the Church. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lawrence v. Texas that the Constitution “protects private, consensual, homosexual conduct” (qtd. in Keshaw 557). Some U.S. states have now allowed same-sex marriage because of this provision citing the Supreme Court ruling which stated that this is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (Keshaw 557). While the origin of homosexuality cannot be ascertained, as said in the first statements of this essay, the homosexual or gay movement can be ascertained here. Rome, which is the seat of the papacy and the center of Catholicism, saw the rise of the gay movement. In 1994, Rome was the center of the Gay Pride, a series of events promoting the Italian gay movement. In this event, about ten thousand people, gay and non-gay, paraded in the streets of Rome which were held to promote the movement and the gay identity. This was opposed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy when it denounced the movement as “a serious depravation”, “the dire effect of a refusal of God”, and “intrinsically irregular” and should have the approval of the Catholic Church (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, qtd. in Mudu 192). The Church however did not want to generally judge gay people and homosexual acts. The document stated that the Church sympathized with the homosexual condition. However, Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Francis) commented in 1985 that “a person indulging in homosexual practices acts immorally” (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, qtd. in Mudu 193). Once again, it was proven that church laws and state laws oppose each other. In 1994, the European Parliament told the members of the European Union to be fair to members of the gay and lesbian communities by cancelling discriminatory laws against these people. While the news referred to politics and human laws over God’s laws, it was clear from the very start that homosexuality is not permitted in the Catholic Church (Mudu 193). Religious teachings and homosexuality have always been opposed. Preachers have denounced homosexuality the way they denounce evil. In 2003, Reverence ?ke Green was convicted by a Swedish court for hate speech when he commented that homosexual relationships were “sexual abnormalities” and a “cancerous tumor on society”. He also commented that homosexuality was the cause of AIDS. Prosecutors charged that Green’s comments were an abuse of free speech. Gay rights movements cite the “Equal Protection Clause” in their quest for equal treatment. But the gay rights movement denounces religious laws and comments on the pulpit not only to gain their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment but also to gain societal approval, through the law and the advantage of public opinion. Many religious groups, on the other hand, have continued their comments and attacks against homosexuality. They continue to teach that homosexuality is wrong as mandated by God and the Bible and that if they agree with the popular opinion favoring homosexuality they oppose God (Brammer 1002). Gay rights proponents continue to suppress hate speech because of violent events committed against their group. For example, in 1998 Matthew Shepard was a victim of anti-gay violence when he was tortured and killed. Violence can also be committed by means of hate speech which can cause emotional distress on victims. Despite these events, the gay rights movements continue to gain support and members of the LGBT have attained rights and freedoms in different countries. On the other hand, it is the religious institutions that now feel threatened of the presence of the gay rights movements. Religious groups feel that religious free speech which they use against the movements may soon be suppressed by way of legal barriers by citing the First Amendment. Proponents of the gay rights movements want that religious free speech should be removed, or they want to weaken “current religious liberty protections and to allow groups to dictate the bounds of religious speech and freedom” (Brammer 1003). Conclusion Some people or countries believe that homosexual is a fundamental right. But this is only shown in their practice, like same-sex marriage as becoming legal. The different churches (the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Churches, the Judaism, and other monotheistic religions) seem to be one in saying that homosexuality is not and should not be permitted because, traditionally, it is against the law of God. The natural law that man is for woman and sex was devised by God purely for procreation. The concept of sex for procreation also has different interpretations by different religions. The conclusion that can be drawn here is that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not permitted by any monotheistic religion. Gays or homosexuals (or members of the LGBT) are members of society and of the church – as the Church also sympathizes with homosexuals – but their act (the sexual act) is not acceptable. Works Cited Brammer, J Brady. “Religious Groups and the Gay Rights Movement: Recognizing Common Ground.” Brigham Young University Law Review 4.2 (2006): 995-1031. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 14 July 2013. Kershaw, Jeffrey. “Towards an Establishment Theory of Gay Personhood.” Vanderbilt Law. Review 58.2 (2005): 555-597. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 13 July 2013. Mudu, Pierpaolo. “Repressive Tolerance: The Gay Movement and the Vatican in Rome.” GeoJournal 58.2-3 (2002): 189-196. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 14 July 2013. Raday, Frances. “Sacralising the Patriarchal Family in the Monotheistic Religions: ‘To no form of Religion is Woman Indebted for One Impulse of Freedom’.” International Journal of Law in Context 8.2 (2012): 211-230. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/S1744552312000055. Web. 14 July 2013. Vibert, Simon. “Divine Order and Sexual Conduct.” The Way Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church. Ed. Timothy Bradshaw. Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 2003. 113-137. Print. Yecies, Sharon. “Sexual Orientation, Discrimination, and the Universal Discrimination of Human Rights.” Chicago Journal of International Law 11.2 (2011): 789-812. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 12 July 2013. Read More