Questioning the Bible's Role in Gay Marriage Debate

Categories: Gay Homosexuality Marriage Society

Essay, Pages 4 (1000 words)

Views

413

Given the title of Lisa Miller's article, it may seem like she is advocating for the religious aspect of the gay marriage debate. However, upon closer reading, it is evident that she is actually critiquing the Bible and its role in discrimination. This bias undermines the author's argument, which asserts that there is no valid reason to outlaw gay marriage.

Author Lisa Miller argues that despite the controversial topic of whether the Bible permits homosexuals to be married sacramentally, she believes that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Questioning the Bible’s Role in Gay Marriage Debate ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Miller points out the outdated passages in scripture, unclear statements in the Bible, and the importance of equality as reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed.

In her essay, she suggests that those who oppose gay marriage often use Biblical text to support their views. She portrays opponents of gay marriage in a negative manner by highlighting how they turn to the Bible as a guide for marriage (Miller 228). She argues that the Bible does not provide reasons to deny marriage to gays, but rather supports the idea of their marriage.

Additionally, she challenges the concept of a "traditional family" embraced by conservatives, pointing out that such families are rarely seen in reality, showcasing her personal perspective (Miller 230).

The author argues that there is no distinction between elderly or infertile couples and homosexuals who cannot reproduce when it comes to marriage. She points out that the phrase "Be fruitful and multiply" spoken by God does not apply to homosexuals. Additionally, she highlights how the "authors of the Bible" could not have foreseen the changes in society to accommodate the needs of older or infertile individuals.

Lisa Miller presents a literalist viewpoint on gay marriage but lacks strong evidence to support her argument. She also mentions various religious leaders in her discussion.

In her essay, she veers off course by briefly discussing the history of homosexual relationships without providing sources for her statements. The majority of her arguments rely on opinions rather than concrete evidence. For example, when she references readings from Leviticus to support her claim that the Bible condemns gay male sex as an "abomination" (Miller 230), she fails to convince readers with factual information.

Miller believes that the lines from Leviticus are considered "throwaway lines" that no longer hold relevance in today's world. She does not provide evidence for her claim that Leviticus is outdated, despite stating earlier that the Bible is always an accurate representation of contemporary society. This contradiction weakens her argument about the passages from Leviticus.

The author tries to establish credibility by not providing concrete, verified information and using misleading details. Additionally, she appeals to the readers' emotions by discussing relationships with friends and family, as well as love. Miller heavily relies on her personal opinions and perspectives when interpreting stories from the Bible.

When discussing the relationship between King David and his friend Jonathan, some suggest that their love for each other may have had romantic undertones. However, there is no evidence to support the idea that there was a sexual relationship between the two men. The author suggests that speculation about "what Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy" is left to the imagination (Miller 233). This statement is clearly based on opinion, as there are no indications in the text that their relationship was anything more than platonic.

Analyzing this using ethos reveals that there is no logical justification for how this contributes to her argument on gay marriage. The passage is not tied to her thesis, and there is no cited source for it. In addition to her biased opinions, she makes broad generalizations about Biblical stories and scriptures when discussing the issue of same-sex marriage.

In her essay, she tries to bolster her argument by quoting Pastor Terry Davis, who believes that homosexual marriage should be viewed in the same light as traditional marriage. The pastor emphasizes the importance of committed relationships over casual sex, and expresses support for recognizing committed same-sex relationships within the church. However, his avoidance of the term "marriage" suggests he may actually be referring to holy unions or blessings that some churches offer.

Miller is making a case for same sex marriage, so the pastor's hurtful statement about her essay is even more impactful. She also tries to defend herself in another part of her essay by arguing that same sex marriages are not forbidden in the Bible, but her response lacks depth as it is evident she did not do proper research before making her claim. Additionally, Miller mistakenly asserts that "the Bible and Jesus do not explicitly state that marriage should be between one man and one woman" when quoting a minister.

Furthermore, she asserts that "no sensible modern person wants marriage to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes (Miller 229)." However, a simple glance at passages like 1 Corinthians or chapter 2 of Genesis confirms that marriage is intended for two individuals of opposite genders. By neglecting proper research and relying on subjective opinions, Miller's argument is weakened and lacks logical coherence.

Despite reading this essay, readers will not be persuaded to align with Lisa Miller's viewpoint on gay marriage as she employs ineffective strategies to "educate" readers and relies heavily on biased opinions and unsubstantiated facts. Her use of numerous logical fallacies concerning the timelines in the Bible, determining what is relevant and what is outdated, results in a circular argument that repeatedly questions whether gay individuals should have the right to marry in the same manner as heterosexual individuals.

When she agrees that they should, her argument is that denying people marriage based on ethnicity or skin color would be unethical. However, she completely disregards her thesis statement and makes illogical claims about the differences between race and sexuality. This invalid point fails to appeal to the authors' sense of reason and ethics.