A father picks up his newspaper the morning after he buried his son, a Marine Corps Corporal. He found the front page dominated by a story about protesters thanking God for killing another soldier.

The protester's justification? Their message is supported by scripture, God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuals and the death of soldiers is a welcome sign of God’s wrath.

How is a parent supposed to feel when their beloved child, who happened to be different, dies fighting to protect a people who's only response is “You’re going to hell!” and “God hates you!” ?

The claim in question today is "Homosexuality is morally wrong, because God says so." I disagree. I believe that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality. Just as it would be silly to condemn a person to eternal damnation and hell-fire for preferring the use of their left hand over their right (being left-handed), I think it is equally silly to condemn someone for preferring a person of the same sex over one of the opposite sex.

Let's look at what part of the Bible supports this claim. A few sample translations from various publications include:

King James Version, first published in 1611: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

New International Version, first published in 1978: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

New English Translation, first published in 2005: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."
-Leviticus 18:22

In this essay, I will explain my research findings, including key terms, statistics and historical reviews, to defend my opinion that calling homosexuality morally wrong is, in and of itself, morally wrong.

William Tyndale is commonly called the father of the English Bible. He completed the translation of the New Testament in 1526. In doing so, Tyndale introduced new words into the English language, such as: Jehovah, Passover, atonement and scapegoat.

The Roman Catholic Church was not pleased. Tyndale's translation used words like 'overseer' instead of 'bishop,' 'elder' instead of 'priest,' 'congregation' instead of 'church' and 'love' instead of 'charity'. Tyndale also argued that the Greek New Testament, which we know as simply 'New Testament' or 'the gospel', did not support traditional Roman Catholic readings.

Let's look at the definitions of these controversial words:

An 'overseer' is a person who keeps watch over and directs the work of others whereas a 'bishop' is a senior member of the Christian clergy who wields spiritual and administrative authority, even considered in some churches to be successors of the twelve Apostles of Christ.

An 'elder' is an older, influential member of a family, tribe, or community whereas a 'priest' is a member of the second grade of clergy ranking below a bishop but above a deacon and having authority to administer the sacraments.

A 'congregation' is an assemblage of people, animals or things collected together whereas a 'church' is a body of people who attend or belong to a place for public worship.

'Love' is a strong positive emotion of regard and affection whereas 'charity' is something given to help the needy.

As one can see, while the terms have things in common, they do not mean the same thing. The wording in traditional Roman Catholic readings tends towards the clergy's divine right to rule others, to mandate attendance to their sermons and towards giving monetary gifts for the support of the church. In other words, it suited their needs.

However, for the sake of argument let's suppose that all the various Leviticus 18:22 passages really do mean the same thing and that the message it wants to get across is that homosexuality is an undesirable trait. Leviticus 20:13 goes on to say that it is punishable by death, coincidentally the same punishment given to murderers. Some anti-gay Christians say this implies that homosexuality is at least equal to the sin of murder and that all homosexuals should be regarded by every society to be just as much criminals as are murderers. If we take it that far, should every written law in the bible be enforced?

Some would agree with Robert T. Lee, the founder of the Society For the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments, who says, "Man has not been given the authority and power to define the nature of crime. That authority is rightfully reserved only by God. [...] Therefore it is God who can best define what is evil for man."

Let's take that idea and see where it goes:

"I do not let women teach. I do not let them have authority over men. They must be quiet." -1 Timothy 2: 12 (New International Reader's Version)

In this case, one might consider the United States Constitution to be in direct opposition to the foundational and righteous principles of God. Lee says on his website: "The constitution, particularly the first amendment, in essence states that male citizens have the so-called "right" and "freedom" to think, speak and act in ways opposite to their God-given and thus rightful role as males; and females have the so-called "right" and "freedom" to think, speak and act in ways opposite to their God-given and thus rightful role as females. In no way does the constitution encourage faithfulness to your rightful gender, but strongly discourages it by virtue of its most poisonous concepts of "rights" and "freedoms."

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession." -Leviticus 25:44-45. (New American Standard Bible)

Does this give us permission to treat others as though they are less than human, even so far as to enslave them, simply because they are different?

"Withhold not from a youth chastisement, When thou smitest him with a rod he dieth not. Thou with a rod smitest him, And his soul from Sheol thou deliverest." - Proverbs 23:13-14 (Young's Literal Translation)

The Federal legislation that provides the minimum standards that the States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect, defines physical child abuse as "any non accidental physical injury to the child" In approximately 36 States, the American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare.

Is this legislation wrong for wanting people to find better ways to guide children's behavior?

It is mainly passages from the Old Testament that promote slavery, sexism, child-abuse, polygamy, genocide, and other vices now that were considered virtues in their day. One argument is that when Jesus died on the cross the believer's sins were covered by blood that granted forgiveness and began a new covenant that made the laws of the old obsolete, as can be interpreted by reading Hebrews 8: 8-13. However, in the book of Matthew, chapter 5 after Christ's resurrection, in verses 17-18 Jesus says,

"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Now, we could still suppose I am misinterpreting that verse. Jesus supposedly died two thousand years ago. Why is it that less than two hundred ago, in 1865 when Congress passed the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery, were people were still quoting those same scriptures to justify keeping their black slaves? One could say that those people were misguided, that the Bible was written for a different time, when it was culturally acceptable to do those things; that the Old Testament is not used by Christians for laws we must live by, and that it is basically just a history book. In that case, my argument that there are no moral grounds for condemning homosexuality still stands since the book in which it is prohibited, Leviticus, is from the Old Testament.

Some people continue to justify their condemnation of homosexuals by pointing out that it is carried over to the New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God." -1 Cor. 6:9-10, (Amplified Bible)

"Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either—women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches." -Rom. 1:26-27, (The Message)

"We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God." -I Timothy 1:9-10, (New Century Version)

Now, it should be noted that all of these verses are excerpts from letters by the apostle Paul to their respective recipients. Before taking them at face value, listen to what the apostle Peter had to say about Paul's writings.  

In 2 Peter 3:15-17 he says: "You can be sure the long waiting of our Lord is part of His plan to save men from the punishment of sin. God gave our dear brother Paul the wisdom to write about this also. He wrote about these things in all of his writings. Some of these things are hard to understand. People who do not have much understanding and some who are not strong in the faith change the meaning of his letters. They do this to the other parts of the Holy Writings also. They are destroying themselves as they do this. And so, dear friends, now that you know this, watch so you will not be led away by the mistakes of these sinful people. Do not be moved by them." (New Life Version)

With this warning in mind, it should be noted that the very word 'homosexual' and phrases specifically referring to sex between people of the same gender for the previous condemning verses are NOT found in all Bible translations across the board.

Each translation reflects the world-view, beliefs and mind set of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. It is therefore no wonder that many have wished to know what the original text actually said. The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) has analyzed the Leviticus verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." That is, rather than forbidding homosexuality, it simply restricts where it can happen. This may seem like a strange prohibition to us today, but it was consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. Much of Leviticus deals with the "Levitical Holiness Code," a code of conduct that was part of a covenant that required the children of Israel to not participate in the religious rituals of the Canaanites once they entered the promised land. They were not to eat with, intermarry, worship with or in a manner similar to the Canaanites. They were to remain "holy" or set apart. In obeying this covenant, they would prove themselves to be God's chosen people.

Since women were thought to be unclean during certain times of month, they had beds of their own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only for the purpose of having sex with her. Any other use of her bed would have been a defilement. An argument against this interpretation is that it would not go well with the next verse that discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22 which prohibits children being sacrificed to Molech. So a second break between verses 22 and 23 would not be unreasonable.

The seriousness of this crime in Hebrew eyes was made worse by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male gender. Women were considered property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and thus, to violate the image of God.

Anti-gay Christians will often complain that people supporting the gay community who quote the bible make their arguments by taking the scriptures out of context. In the case against homosexuality, I accuse the anti-gay people of the same crime.

It is now the 21st century and we have let go of many of the old ways of thinking that are no longer practical in our society. I do not see how condemning homosexuality is practical today. Is it because homosexual couples can't produce offspring? What about couples where the partners are sterile, barren or simply too old? Should their love be condemned? Then why do we have adoption, surrogacy, In vitro fertilization, and foster children? Since those olden times, infant mortality rates have gotten lower and people are living longer due to modern technology. With the world population scheduled to hit 7 billion people in the year 2012, the human race is hardly in danger of dying out.

Is it because the AIDs epidemic was originally found in homosexual men? What does that matter? What if it had originally been found in blond women or short men or Muslim children or people that were left-handed? Obviously this unfortunate coincidence is just an excuse for those wanting to justify their homophobia. If every homosexual in the world turned straight overnight, would the AIDs virus cease to exist? No, because AIDs isn't caused by homosexuality, it isn't transmitted by casual contact with homosexuals, it isn't cured by sexual intercourse with a virgin, and it won't stop spreading until people are educated about it, learn to practice safe-sex and stop sharing contaminated needles.

So, if homosexuality is not an 'abomination', what is it? Homosexuality is an inborn preference, not a conscious choice to like something the person knows will turn them into hated members of society; it is a personal truth, not a mental illness that needs to be cured. This needs to be taught in our schools along with the rest of the anti-bias curriculum, to inspire tolerance and help prevent the injustices that affect the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transsexual, Asexual, Pansexual community and to lessen the influence of negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality. Otherwise we will continue to hear about tragedies like the man denied CPR when the police officer was informed of his sexual orientation, the boy beaten to death on suspicion of being gay, and the homosexual teenager struggling with social hostility and isolation that turns to suicide as a solution to their pain.

Today laws against homosexuality still exist around the world, with the punishments being anywhere from a fine and 3 years incarceration in Algeria to being put to death in places like Saudi Arabia. There currently exist groups here in the U.S. like the Traditional Values Coalition, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and others that are dedicated to the promotion of anti-homosexual legislation, to deter them from being a protected class against hate-crimes, to stop them from getting legally married, to prevent them from adopting children or serving as foster parents, and even to keep their families from receiving health care.

As a country founded by people seeking to escape religious persecution, for having beliefs that differed from the norm, as a country that established a democracy proclaiming that "All men are created equal" why do we try so hard to make others conform to our personal way of life and scorn those who have the courage to stand their ground?

I'm not asking that anyone encourage their children towards homosexuality, nor that they force them to be friends with homosexuals. Just as forcing a child to say a meaningless "sorry" doesn't teach them empathy, forcing preferences and friendships won't teach them open-mindedness. What I'm asking for is not so unreasonable. I'm merely asking that we give homosexuals the chance to live normal lives; that we accept them for who they are without making them feel shame, guilt, unworthiness or fear; that we address them and treat them in a civil manner and accord them their dignity. I ask that we give them back their unalienable rights guaranteed to them as human beings and under the United States Declaration of Independence, their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I quote Chief Justice Earl Warren who, in the 1967 Supreme Court case "Loving v. Virginia" involving an interracial couple, wrote "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

In conclusion, I hope I have given you all some food for thought, that I have provoked you to question all you've ever been told to believe about homosexuality and that I have proven in this essay that there are no moral nor practical grounds to condemn homosexuality, that the biblical law is set to the standards of an out-dated code of conduct, and I hope that we learn, once again, that it is wrong to hate someone simply because they are different.