Arguments from scripture
Göran pointed me to a wonderfully succinct article by Father Tobias Stanislas Haller concerning the general poverty of 'one man, one woman' religious arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
A chief strategy of fundamental/ist religionists is to assert their pronouncements to be fundamentally and unequivocally rooted in scripture and natural (or divine) law. Many hold the Christian bible to be the 'inspired, inerrant word of God'. Yet their use of scripture generally betrays a lack of reverence for an instrument held to contain such a divine revelation. Interpretation and exegesis is largely 'unsophisticated and sub-critical', as Father Tobias points out:
For example, the relevance of the “Sodom” story to male homosexuality (apart from assault) has surely been widely debunked — even among reasserters.More problematical is the casual mixing of the two creation accounts in a way that fails to acknowledge that in the second account there is no sexual congress until after the Fall. The procreative and unitive functions are therefore clearly separable: human society requires procreation for its propagation, but unity for its well-being; nor does the church forbid marriage to those incapable of fertility, nor does it terminate marriages at the onset of infertility. It is also clear that the command to multiply, which is also given to the wild creatures in Genesis 1, is supplemented and crowned by the command to loving society established in Genesis 2, which endures in the absence and beyond the cessation of any capacity to procreate; and which indeed also allows for the recognition of celibacy as a legitimate way of life, contrary to the explicit command of Genesis 1:28.
Results of painstaking linguistic, historical and critical scholarship concerning the texts and their use and meaning are ignored in favor of a so-called 'literal reading' of the text. The 'literal' reading is in most cases nothing of the sort. Texts are interpreted literally when a literal reading supports a particular dogmatic or political purpose (such as a 'literal' reading of a six day creation, or a prohibition against women exercising leadership) but are understood figuratively at other times, even when the text suggests a literal meaning (such as Jesus' sayings concerning walking the extra mile or selling all you have and giving it to the poor).
Sometimes this contortion is performed within a single passage or verse. For instance, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is often used to support condemnation of homosexuality. Even if English translations of the Greek words μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται as 'male prostitutes or homosexual offenders' or similar were correct — and it is largely believed by scholars that they are not — this passage cannot be used to single out homosexuality for eternal reprobation unless one also takes the same view of adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. That a good proportion of Christendom — and its clergy — have indulged in some or all of these vices is beyond dispute.
Father Tobias provides another telling example of exegetical crudeness:
Jude 7 nowhere mentions “unnatural lusts” in the original; the text refers to going “after different flesh.” This is a Middle Eastern idiom for slander, analogous to our contemporary idioms “chew someone out,” “backbiting” and “dishing” — which is in keeping with the overall tenor of the Epistle. Moreover the reference to purported “sexual immorality” in the same verse uses a verb form that means “prostituted themselves” (ekporneusasai) — hardly a possible description of homosexual assault if that is what Sodom was about! — and most likely refers figuratively to idolatry and greed — in keeping with the use of this verb elsewhere in Scripture, and also far more in keeping with the rest of the Epistle, and indeed the other Scriptural references to Sodom.More importantly, this condemnation of “going after different flesh (sarkos heteras)” — were it to be understood to refer to sexuality — would also go contrary to the whole idea of “complementarity” ...
So texts are used and presented in such a way as to make them mean whatever the religionists want them to mean. You can be sure that anyone who prefaces something with 'scripture unequivocably says...' is counting on your ignorance of the richness and ambiguity and amzing diversity of the texts therein. To render an honest, critical and nuanced reading of scripture in a manner consistent with the overarching themes of Christian faith is not their intent. Rather, like wolves in sheeps clothing, they come offering sweet sounding proofs and certainties so they may get all the closer in order to devour you.