Gays Without Rights

Gays without Rights

By first examination of "Homophobic? Read Your Bible," it might appear that Peter J. Gomes did a somewhat sensible job of arguing his case, however upon inspection it is easy to see how Gomes fails to establish his rationale. Gomes argues that America is using religion to wrongly deny gays their civil rights (Gomes 412:1). He claims that many Americans against gay rights, especially homophobics, tend to use bible scriptures as their claim that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore deny gays their civil rights. Gomes splits his argument into three main parts: introducing his case by revealing current issues dealing with homosexuality, his main argument that the bible does not attack homosexuality, and concluding by interpreting the scriptures providing support for his case. Although, Gomes presents a valid thesis that America is denying gays their civil rights, his argument of using religion to do so, is weak.

As Gomes unravels his argument, he is skeptical about what the Bible actually forbids, but neglects to institute a foundation for his doubts. He testifies that Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46, and II Kings 23:7 "simply forbid prostitution, by men and women" (413:5). Gomes implies that as long as it is not in exchange for a commodity, homosexuality is permitted. However, in the Bible, the only verse he lists that mentions prostitution is from Deuteronomy 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." Sodomy is defined as copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal (Sodomy 357). Gomes fails to cite the whole scripture, and manipulates it to his benefit, for it does condemn homosexuality as well. Along with his manipulation of the Deuteronomy scripture, Gomes also lists, but never shows context of I Kings 14:24 "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel." In addition, he shows no context of I Kings 22:46 "And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land," and II Kings 23:7 "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove." None of the Kings scriptures mentions prostitution, but overtly involve sodomies, which refer to homosexuality. Gomes did not prove his point well; that the scriptures he listed only prohibit prostitution. From these scriptures, god "simply" forbids prostitution and homosexuality.

Upon further analysis, despite his logical organization, Gomes fails to establish his argument that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality; he does not back up his analysis with logical evidence or scriptural context from the Bible and contradicts himself at times. The key concern of Gomes' essay is whether particular scriptures have been interpreted correctly. He bases his analysis mainly on his own interpretations, which he even states is not a valid argument against homosexuality when he declares, "These matters are far too important to be left to scholars and seminarians alone" (Gomes 413:12). Oddly, Gomes is a professor at Harvard and is considered a scholar. Is he, in the end, saying that his personal interpretations should not be considered reliable? This contradiction throws a sense of cynicism to the reader and makes the reader question how solid, or confident, Gomes is in his argument. Gomes has the right idea when it comes to essential evidence, but instead of presenting and analyzing each verse individually, he often combines many verses into a cluster and then examines them. While this may work for specific cases, Gomes pitches the full group of verses out with a single sentence and no explanations following. This lack of evidence and explanation does nothing to establish his argument.

Gomes shows a lack of respect to his readers, and in turn, it becomes evident that he is talking only to an audience that shares a view similar to his own. He narrows his appeal, and allows himself to treat his opponent (fundamentalists and literalists) with less than equal respect. This may satisfy those who support his scrutiny, but it also deducts from the impact that this essay has in an open debate. When Gomes uses phrases such as "the storm troopers of the religious right" (413:10), he degrades his opponent and compromises what could have been a respectable argument. He uses terms like "gay-bashers"(412:3) and calls religious fundamentalism "inherently intolerant" (414:14). His constant use of "they" throughout the essay shows that he groups the fundamentalists' and literalists' opinions and interpretations as the same. By grouping everyone else's opinions except his own into the category "they," he indirectly implies that his opinions are superior by not giving the proper recognition to each group's values.

Gomes' title as "minister" and his status at Harvard University give him an advantage in the topic of the Bible, however, his knowledge is still questionable. Because of his title, his readers expect that he has a sturdy clarification of Scripture, and because of his position, is to be highly respected. However, as with most topics, the most knowledgeable or respected person is not always right. In addition, Gomes gives strength to his writing in his statement where he states, "those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret" (414:17), but weakens his argument when he does not include himself in this category. The Bible is not his "alone to interpret" just as it is not "theirs". Referring to a person as a "fundamentalist" does not automatically make them a gay/lesbian hater and identifying himself as a "minister" does not automatically make Gomes the authority on the subject he argues.

Furthermore, Mr. Gomes tends to contradict himself in a crude manner. He claims "Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant" (414:14). He says that fundamentalism is undemocratic, and defines "the other" (someone without the exact same views or opinions) as deviant (414:15). Where is his evidence that "fundamentalism" is dangerous? Gomes criticizes fundamentalism, yet he never really defines it. Fundamentalism is defined as a person who believes in the literal truth of the Bible (Fundamentalism 154). His logic is unclear in this section of the essay. If he says that fundamentalists are intolerant, is he not being intolerant of fundamentalists, or a