The People’s Wrath

More often times then not you will find in a conversation pertaining to gay rights you will encounter the Religious right and their objections to the union of same sex couples. There are many things I do not understand about their arguments associated with this sensitive subject. Being raised in the Catholic church I was taught many things. Amongst those things were responsibility for individual actions, tithing, and God’s unconditional love for all of his people. the two most important things I had learned in my 15 years of memorable attendence rested upon two major lesson, the 7 deadly sins, and the 10 commandments. The religious right claims things in their arguments that violates at least one major law of each set forth by God. Among their assertions is that homosexuals spread disease and the act is simply against God’s will. Wrath is one of the 7 deadly sins. An action of wrath can be defined by extreme anger resulting in judgement that thus hinders someone’s ability to live their life quite possibly in the light of Christ. God’s judgement is for God alone. Once you pass judgement and take matters into your own hands and adversly affect someone’s life you have committed an act of wrath. In the ten commandments it states “love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” Essentially the golden rule by which humanity should govern itself and it’s people. When you are not tolerant of the people around you and your fellow human beings in general you are in serious violation of this. So I present this to you, if your arguments contain Biblical standing I assure you that the reprecussions of your self righteous indignations would result in a sort of Biblical treason. I personally do not protest the work of God but rather the enforcement of the human rights given to us by God himself.
Another argument that I had specified above the that homosexuals spread disease. But hypothetically is they did have a higher transmission rate then heterosexuals (being there is little or no definitive evidence) would they not be spreading it amongst other homosexuals thus not affecting heterosexuals. In addition the fact that homosexuals are not widely accepted in society their social circles are tighter and the point of promescuity tightens. The disease in question is transmitted contingent upon circumstance, not statistics. The highest transmisson rate has fallen upon race not sexual orientation. African Americans are statstically responsible for a higher transmisson rate of HIV. Does this mean we should take away rights from people in the African American communties because statistics show that they have a higher transmisson rate? I hardly think so.
As far as the Consititution is concerned the 14th ammendement should take care of any question of equality. The declaration of Indepdence states that all men are created equal and assumably should be treated accordingly. The fact of the matter is that no one in America has or can obtain the authority to dictate someone’s actions based on their actions in their personal life. If the action does not harm or has no intention to harm there is no merit for obstructing someone life liberty or pursuit of happiness. In conclusion I submit to you not a sacra religious view point but rather a view of tolerance and unity. If you chose not to accept tolerance and unity you most certainly cannot expect the same in return.
Love is nexplicable and to attempt to explain the power of it is simply ignorant. God has given us free will. With that will it is up to the individual whether or not we follow the path. It is not for another to object how this path is traveled. If God has unconditional love for us why in the world would he put conditions on the love we have for others. Homosexuals are human beings with the same passions, desires, and needs. To disallow them the right to be happy as everyone else is, is a crime in many aspects. However at the end of the day after all the arguments have been heard and all the words have been spoken the legality of it all boils down to the simple fact of seperation of religion and state. Although the Consitiution mentions the lord several times one of the few things our founding fathers begged of us in return for our inate human rights was not to take their democratic republic and turn it inside out producing a Biblical theocracy. Our founding fathers had prided themselves over and over again to treat eachother with respect and dignity as well as allow different beliefs because they had a vision of a country where you could dictate your own actions free of religious or social expectations. I lamely digress in remeberance of the motto printed on the first ever penny. “Mind your own business”