Most Common Anti-Homosexuality Arguments Refuted

Homosexuality is Unnatural

          Out of all the arguments that I have heard in my life, if one had to make the most sense this would be the one. This is why I have chosen to address this argument first before the others. It is a very simple argument, only three words, short and to the point. However, before we really get into this argument we first need to understand what this argument is saying. If homosexuality is unnatural let us first ask ourselves what is not natural.
          How can something not be natural? Nature encompasses all of existence. That includes whoever is reading this, myself, insects, computers, mountains, cars, buildings, stars, and anything that is in existence. Now I would imagine that a common rebuttal to this argument would be something along the lines of homosexuality is found all over nature. We are aware of a great many animals that have homosexual traits. An article by James Owen for National Geographic News shows us the cases of many homosexual animals including birds, sheep, beetles, fruit bats, dolphins, penguins, orangutans, ostriches, flamingos and apes. Owen cites two cases specifically, one of them being Roy and Silo who are two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo. Roy and Silo have been sexually active with each other for several years while at the same time ignoring several female mates. The second case Owen cites is that of the Bonobo, an African ape. Studies have suggested that up to 75 percent of the Bonobo sex is non-reproductive and that it is a very realistic possibility that all Bonobo apes may very well be bisexual.
          The example above is just one of a hundred examples that I could cite that show homosexuality is current in the animal kingdom. Now, this is not a horrible rebuttal, but I do believe that it has one major hole. It presumes that humans are not a part of nature. This is not true. Homo Sapiens interact with nature in almost every way, if not more than other animals, we like all other animals evolved from “lesser beings” (if you doubt that there is a bigger issue which is at hand), in short we are a product of nature just like everything else.
          If we ask ourselves what is unnatural the answer is nothing. There is no such thing as unnatural for remember nature encompasses all of existence. The barrier that we as a civilization place between natural and unnatural is a false barrier. It is a product of our minds that look for patterns and balance. If we have win we have lose, proton and electron, night and day, up and down, good and evil, and you could go on and on. We like everything in our lives to have balance. Not so much on one side that it throws everything off. So we interpret this in the way we view our lives and the world in a general sense. It is hard for many to comprehend that there can be literally only one side to an issue regardless of what it is. In this case it is nature.
          But maybe I still have not hit among the correct definition of unnatural. Perhaps your unnatural is just referring to behavior. It has nothing to do with not being a part of the natural world (even though it’s called unnatural). You could easily make an argument that it is referring to behavior and behavior alone. For that case I ask you is painting lines on a field and then trying to get people to run down the field with a ball natural? Is it natural to shoot a rifle in the air for no purpose other than to just shoot it? Is it natural to get off the ground onto a trampoline and then jump back onto the ground where you started off in the first place? Is it natural for many to gather into a building to worship a figure that they have never met? Obviously none of these behaviors could be considered natural, and yet no one thinks any of these behaviors are unnatural, evil, or immoral.
          Really this is the central theme to this rebuttal. Homosexuality is not unnatural, however even if someone were to make the claim that it is, it does not make it automatically bad in any sense. I do not understand why just because someone says unnatural they automatically jump to the idea of bad, evil, wrong, immoral, or anything that is associated with a negative. An excellent example of this is whenever an agnostic, atheist, anti-theist, or free thinker of any kind comes along and says that there are a lot of basic inconsistencies that do not add up in regards to the concept of God, almost always the theist will respond by making the claim that God is outside of the realm of nature and therefore outside of the realm in which we can understand. So from that perspective if you worship a deity (of any kind) and you believe that homosexuality is evil, wrong, and immoral because it is unnatural, than that must mean you believe that your deity is evil, wrong, and immoral. After all God is not natural. However this is not how any theist views their God. Theists view their God as a loving and beautiful being which is outside the realm of nature. Since God exists outside of nature, God is unnatural. Also, since God is a good being that shows something unnatural can be good.
          This is why this argument does not make much sense to me. It’s why I say it is not an argument, but a justification. As I said above, our minds look for ways to balanced out obstacles. Whenever something comes along in our lives that we cannot balance we try to make justifications for whatever it is. In this case it is homosexuality. We have this tendency in our lives to dislike anything that is off the mainstream of society. Now this does not affect everyone, however I would say this does affect the majority of society (myself included). We like things to stay in the mainstream and I know I personally do not like things that change from the norm. Society prefers things that keep our lives in check. The problem is that instead of society coming up with reasons to overcome that, we just try to make justifications for it. People say I hate homosexuality because a holy book tells us to hate homosexuality, I hate homosexuality because that it what I was brought up to believe, or in this case: homosexuality is unnatural.
          It should always be pointed out that this is not an argument it is a justification. This “argument” against homosexuality does not hold up to the standards of an argument at any level. For this reason it is not a real argument and it should not be given the validation of being one.

The Point of Marriage is to Produce Children

          This is arguably one of the worst claims that are made against homosexuality. Yes, it is true that one of the best things to come out of a marriage, if not the best thing is children. However, to say that this is the point of marriage is to make the claim that there are no other points that hold up as important and this is not true. First and most obvious no two marriages are the same. No two cases are the same because everyone has different lives, different families, different cultures, traditions, beliefs, which then causes different variables in every case. If this is the case then why should any person or group have a monopoly on marriage? They shouldn’t.
          Even though I will repeat that this is one of the worst arguments that is held against homosexuality and that it almost is never the main argument, it always comes up in the end. Try telling this argument to someone who is sterile and see how they feel. If the only point of a marriage is to have children then why should a male or female who is sterile bother wasting their time? Everything from hormonal problems to diet and exercise has been known to either help cause or be the source of sterility (Stanford). Try telling a woman that she should not be allowed to marry on the basis of her ovaries can’t produce mature eggs.
          What about people who have already past their reproductive stages in their lives? Should they all not be allowed to marry? What if a widow at old age finds someone else to love and can love back? Should the widow not even bother? Should a couple not marry just because they were not early enough in their lives to find love? What about couples who just don’t want to have kids? There are a great many of them. No one denies any of those couples the right to marry; therefore it is a hypocritical argument.
          The flaw that this argument against homosexuality gives besides being hypocritical is that it makes the impression that marriage has a main point. This is not true. Although marriage may have several points, these points differ from marriage to marriage. No one is allowed to say that marriage has a certain point (regardless of what that point may be); because everyone has different relationships and no two relationships are the same. This is due to the fact that there are different beliefs about marriage all over the world, and those beliefs influence how we act. This goes for the relationship regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage is up to those in the relationship to decide if they are going to get married, how they are going to get married, and for what reasons they are going to get married and no one else has the right to tell them one way or the other.

It’s Hard on the Children

          An argument that makes a little bit, but still not that much more sense than the argument listed above is that children could have a hard life if their parents happen to be gay. This argument can be broken down into several categories due to the fact that the subject of children has come up so much on this issue. For instance popular issues arguing against homosexuality involving children is that they will have a disorderly family and not a stable home life. Also, that it will even make the children gay. Last, that it will subject the children to bullying, racism, and an overall hard life growing up.
          The first argument involving children not having a stable home life is an important one and needs to be considered. If by stating this argument you are implying that the child of homosexual parents will not receive the same love and/or attention that a child of heterosexual parents will receive then you must have information that is not available to me. I am not aware of any piece of evidence that shows that homosexuals are not capable of giving love, support, and flat out caring for someone just like everyone else. The qualities that our society would determine in a good parent on are how the parent supports the child, how that parent provides for the child, and how to help that child come into existence with the world. I want you the reader to imagine that you are a teacher of an elementary school. It is a basic school which is placed in the heart of a normal town. This town is a good town and for the most part everyone gets along. You are happy and all of your students seem to be as well with their lives. Right after all the kids go out to recess one stays behind and you can tell that this child wishes to speak to you. You ask if there is anything that this student needs. The student starts breaking down right in front of you. After this student begins drying its eyes the child begins to speak, “I hate my house. Everything is bad. Everything is bad! Please don’t make me go back there. I don’t want to go! I want to stay here! Can I stay here after school? Please don‘t make me go back!” By hearing this child speak these words it is fair to assume that this child is living with a disorderly family and it is even clearer that this child’s home is not stable. What might you as the teacher think? Maybe the child is not fed enough food and is not receiving the correct amount of nutrition or is just being flat out starved. Maybe the child is being beaten or hurt in ways that are not necessary. Perhaps I dare say that this child is being sexually abused. The point is that if you were to see a child that you knew was not living in a stable home, wondering if the child’s parents were homosexuals would be far from the first thing that you would suspect.
          This issue has not been the first in the spotlight in regards of life being hard on children. The issue of interracial marriage has sadly come up in the past many times. As for society as a whole I think it is clear to say that we have moved on (remember as a whole). This type of marriage is no longer frowned upon and is no longer questioned. I myself am from a family that never had a father. Although I can say that I had a father figure, there are many children that do not have one, or in the other case a mother figure. Surely this would mean that the child of a single parent family will have less a chance of having a stable family and more of a disorderly house. However, no one questions that single parent over the right to have a child. What about families where a spouse is sent away due to the fact that they are in the military? How does one explain to a child that their mom or dad will be going away for years and they will not see him/her? How does one tell a small child that they will never see that parent again due to the fact they died in combat? Surely an event like that case would create an unstable household. If your main concern is children being raised in a stable house with a family that can care for it, do not waste time talking about homosexuals that have kids. There are other families that deserve more attention.
          I am not saying that a homosexual would be automatically good, and I am not trying to give off the idea that heterosexual parents are bad. I am stating that just because a heterosexual parent is good or bad, does not mean that just because they are what we call straight. The same goes the other way around for homosexual parents. James E. Crawford who is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics said it better than I ever could have, “Being a great (or not so great) parent has nothing to do with someone’s sexual orientation. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. I’ve found that it’s not what families look like – but the love they share – that makes the most difference (opposing views).”
          The second argument involving children is that it will turn the children gay. There is little if any evidence to show this. The overwhelming majority of evidence suggests the contrary. The American Psychological Association has reported that, “Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents“. The report went on to add that children raised from homosexual parents developed incredibly similar personal conduct, formation of relationship between peers, parents, family members, and friends, and overall well being of children to heterosexual parents. The report went on to add that, “Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support”.
          Some reports that have appeared even show that it is possible for children raised by homosexual parents to be above average in regards to psychological strength. Abigail Garner is the author of Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is. As you can guess from the title she was raised by homosexual parents and says it was a gift. She says her interviews with other children of gay or lesbian parents showed that those who shared her upbringing tend to be more empathetic and unafraid to take unpopular stands. She also stated, "I'm not surprised when I hear gay parents say their child stood up for the kid who was bullied in class or reached out to the one with a disability (CNN).”
          If one truly believes that parents can turn children gay, than one has to question the massive amount of homosexuals over the years that have been raised by straight parents. Why did they turn gay? Was it due to their parents, or was it from an outside source? This is a reasonable question for I believe it is fair to say that the majority of those people spent most of their time with their parents. If you realize the fact that gay and straight parents have almost equal chances in raising children to turn out gay with the fact that homosexuality is found on all corners of the animal kingdom, it’s very likely that the answer will be found in genetics. There have been studies done on this concept and although the evidence gathered looks to be heading toward this outcome, there is nothing yet that can confirm it. I believe that in the years to come this is where the answer will be discovered.
          A final argument that could be made against homosexuality that involves children is that children will be subject to discrimination as they grow up. First and most obvious, like the argument involving children discussed above, this automatically assumes that homosexuality is wrong. It does not offer any evidence for why it is wrong, it just assumes that it is. The problem is not that children would be discriminated because they are gay. The problem is the flat out discrimination. If society ever learns to accept people due to their inborn nature (which I honestly believe in time it will) then there will be no reason to discriminate. Like I said previously, children with interracially married parents are not discriminated due to the fact that mainstream society has “accepted” that into its norms. If a time ever comes for homosexuals to be “accepted” into the norms of society then I see no reason why children would be made fun of for it.

Marriage is Defined as One Man & One Woman

          This definition of marriage changes from source to source. Although no two definitions will be the exact same, all of them still for the most part say the same thing. If you go to dictionary.com and type in “marriage” you will get two definitions. Here they are word for word:

a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife be legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gander: gay marriage

I am not denying the realistic possibility that the majority of definitions that define marriage may very well be like the first one. The point of this is not to put one definition up against any other. The point is to understand that we do not act the way we do because of how words our defined, words our defined due to how we behave.
          One of the best things about our culture is that it changes. It has changed in the past, it is changing in the present, and it will continue to change in the future. This is because of a better understanding of our universe, science, technology, medicine, and with an understanding of others. The world has not become smaller. Technology has become bigger. While it has become bigger we now have the ability to do things that our ancestors literally would not have been able to dream of. Because of this are appreciation of other cultures and society has also grown with this technology. It is vital that this continues, considering that we still have a lot to learn, and interaction between cultures is guaranteed to continue due to the speed in which our technology is increasing. It is vital that the two try to grow as fast as they can with each other.
          We are not only witnessing this now, but we have witnessed this first hand since the invention of modern science. Because technology has made interaction more common we now have a greater understanding for others. What is the point of all this? The point is simple. Our way of living is currently changing, and will continue to do so. Our moral zeitgeist has improved from burning witched to diplomacy, slavery to laws promoting safety in the workplace, and racism and bigotry to free speech. As our way of life changes, the definitions that make up our lives will change with us. This can be seen in the example above with definition b. Fifty years ago no one could have imagined the definition of marriage even referring to two of the same sex.
          If we are to say that homosexuality is wrong due to the fact that it does not fit into the definition of marriage, than we have yet to realize that our lives are not meant to be based off of definitions but the other way around. This definition may also be true in a legal sense as well. The argument is no different. At one time voter was defined as white male. This is not the case anymore. Why? Because the moral zeitgeist has changed and it must continue to change for our society to appreciate others for whom they are. The case of homosexuality is no different. Those who say that any issue (even the ones that are not in the spotlight or not being debated) should never be changed due to tradition, scripture, definitions, and so on are absurd in every sense and need to open their eyes to reason and evidence.

Homosexuality Hurts the Institution of Marriage

          This rebuttal will be mostly, if not all opinion. Also, if there is an argument that I least understand this would be the one. I am openly welcoming any opinions on this paper. Regardless if those opinions are good or bad, any questions, comments, or concerns that the reader has are free to respond to this in the comment section. I say this during this part of the paper because I would like an explanation for this argument. In a way this is not even a rebuttal, but more of a cry for help in regards to an explanation.
          I have heard several times that homosexuality hurts the institution of marriage. This on the most basic of terms fails to make even a little sense. Take this example: an adult is straight, this adult can see getting married in the future, gets married, and then a homosexual couple moves in next to this adult couple. How would the marriage be in jeopardy? Would they fight more? I see no reason why. Would they get a divorce? Once again I see no reason why they would. Would their children be at risk? Why on earth would heterosexual marriages be in jeopardy if homosexuals could all of a sudden marry?
          Imagine two individual coworkers that you know and have been working with for several years go off and secretly get married. You wouldn’t know it, so how would you be affected? You wouldn’t. So why should that change if they are open about it. The only thing that would change is you would know. They would not throw you lies about your spouse to make you fight. They would not pretend to make it seem as though your spouse is cheating on you. They wouldn’t tell your children to do drugs or corrupt them. So how is a couple that really has nothing to do with you or the decisions you make hurt your marriage? If homosexuals could marry that does not mean that heterosexuals wouldn’t be able too. In fact, the only thing that would be different for your two coworkers is how they fill out their taxes, insurance, other legal documents, and what they do in the privacy of their own home… none of which would affect you or your marriage.

Religion

          Now any fair minded person knows that not all arguments against homosexuality are religiously motivated and certainly not all who oppose homosexuality are religious. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that the majority of opposition for homosexuality are the religious (in America most cases being Christian conservatives) and in most cases find their motivation from religion. Because of this it is important that we understand how “Christian” marriage has come about to what it is today and understand what the argument itself is.
          Now for those who say that marriage is sacred, it is against the teaching of my religion, my holy book says it is immoral, and homosexuality is a sin, they are choosing to argue from a religious perspective. So it is important to understand all of these arguments. Luckily the majority of them can be grouped into the categories of tradition and authority. These arguments being that marriage is sacred, against its teachings, what your holy book says, and it’s a sin are the ones that people are so willing to throw out there. Before I hit on all of these arguments at once I wish to go into depth on how the religious view marriage as sacred.
          The church did not even declare the sacred institution of marriage sacred and official until 1215 (Coontz). This was hundreds of years after the founding of the church. Before then everything from the church to two individuals exchanging marital vows in the bar down the road next to a drunk was considered well enough for the church. What does the Bible say in regards to marriage? If you were to ask the Apostle Paul you would not get an answer anything like the idea of a marriage today (Stedman). Paul’s feelings about marriage range from many points of view including promoting widows and the unmarried to stay single:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 RSV)

Marriage after a divorce is considered adultery:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9 RSV)

Promoting eunuchs:

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12 RSV)

To arguing that marriage wastes devotion to spouses and family when it could be given to God:

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34 RSV)

To be honest, pointing out that there are different opinions even within the church that reflects marriage is beside the point. This is the reason for that. If your argument against homosexuality involves religion even to the smallest extent it is irrelevant. The American Constitution strictly demands that laws that are made hold a neutral position in regards to religious beliefs. If evidence was found that showed homosexuality to support any of the first arguments and was secular, yes the government could deny homosexual rights. Until then, if your argument(s) involves religion do not waste your time. This is why such arguments like marriage is sacred, homosexuality it is a sin, and it is against my belief system do not hold up in a court of law, and more importantly never will.
          I have said above I believe it will be found that the reason for homosexuality in nature will be discovered in genes. There have been serious studies from all aspects of the research world in regards to the gene claim. Many of the studies have supported the claim, but not all. Yes, there have been serious studies done that have reported against homosexuality being caused by genes. The reason I bring this up again is that in the end I do not believe the real issue is homosexuality being found in our genes or not. The issue is not if homosexuality is part of nature, or if it does not fit into our “traditional” idea of marriage. The issue that we should be focused on is asking ourselves can homosexual parents give the same love, time, and devotion to raise a loving stable family. I will repeat if you do not believe that homosexuals can offer these things, than you must have information that is not available to me, as well as the world of academics and research.
          The fact is that families in America are not all made up of moms, dads, aunts, uncles, grandmas, grandpas, sons, and daughters. Many are made up of single parents who work well over 40 hour weeks to support their family. Many are made up of foster parents. Many are made up of older brothers and sisters who have to help support their family because their parent(s) can’t do it alone. Many are made up of friends of the parents who check in to make sure the family has enough food at the end of the week. A family does not have to be a mom, dad, son, and daughter. A family is a group of people who love each other, support each other, help and/or prepare each other in regards to life, and are always there when you need someone to fall back on. Now if homosexuals can do all of these things and it appears that they easily can, I see no reason to deny them these rights. Homosexuals have no right to tell me how to live my life, and for this reason I have no right to tell them how to live theirs.

Works Cited

Cnn, John Blake. "'Gayby Boom': Children of Gay Couples Speak out - CNN.com CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html

Coontz, Stephanie. "Taking Marriage Private." Ney York Times. 26 Nov. 2007. Web. 19 July 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html.

Crawford, James E. "Are Children with Same Sex Parents at a Disadvantage." Opposing Views. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/kids-with-gay-parents-grow-up-just-as-happy-and-well-adjusted.

"Marriage." Dictionary.com Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 18 July 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage.

Owen, James. "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate." National Geographic (2004). Web. 15 July 2010. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children. Rep. Vol. 60. American Psychologist, 2004. Ser. 5. American Psychological Association. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx.

Stedman, Ray C. "Life Without Marriage 1 Cor 7:7-38, Mat 19:5-12 RayStedman.org." RayStedman.org
Authentic Christianity. Web. 31 July 2010. http://www.raystedman.org/thematic-studies/christian-living/life-without-marriage.

What Causes Female Infertility. Rep. Stanford. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of %20Making%20Babies/Causefem.htm.

Christopher Hitchens - The Socrates of Today

            Born on April 13, 1949 Christopher Hitchens would become one of the most outspoken men in politics and religion. To say that Hitchens has accomplished much in his lifetime would be nothing short of an understatement. Hitchens being extremely educated graduated from Oxford in England, and is a British and American Journalist that currently has monthly columns in Vanity Fair and Slate, along with formerly being a columnist in The Atlantic, The Nation, Newsweek, and New York Times (hitchens.web). Hitchens has not only been extremely successful in being a columnist, but has published a great deal of books including God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, the Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, and Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.            
            Hitchens has also appeared on almost every news station on several occasions discussing everything from the Clintons, Jerry Falwell, the Middle East, to modern day secularism. Throughout the past few years, Hitchens has currently found himself in the spotlight by getting involved in hundreds of religious debates across the world. At times Hitchens has even teamed up with many well known atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, and Daniel Dennett. Hitchens is known for his cunning verbal smack downs, intellectual and philosophical thinking, taking on the fight against theists and those that believe America is not a secular country, and those that fight against freedom.

Anti-Theism and Views on Religion

            Christopher Hitchens is not only an atheist he is an anti-theist. I will now take a portion of the paper to explain what this so it does not cause any confusion later on. An anti-theist is an atheist that goes one step further. A atheist does not believe, or at least has a lack of belief in a god or gods. However, an atheist could also be someone that wants there to be god. You see, someone who says, “Yeah I want to believe in God, but I can’t because there is just not enough evidence” or “The idea of a God seems nice I just can’t get myself to believe it”. An anti-theist is someone who not only does not believe in a god, but does not want there to be one. When asked in a debate against Jay Richards, Hitchens was asked what do you live for since this is the only life you believe you have. Hitchens replied,

One of the things I live for is in the words of our greatest founding father the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom and things are incompatible, completely incompatible with the worship if a divine celestial dictator. Someone who can watch you while you sleep and convict you of thought crime, and who’s rule cannot be challenged, and who is the big brother, whose eternal reign may not be disputed. That makes the concept of the pursuit of freedom and happiness negative. It negates it. (Stanford University).

            Hitchens with his anti-theistic views has also made him an outspoken critic of those that believe in intelligent design (creationism). In a short little debate on Fox News against Sean Hannity, Hannity portrayed his views that it does not make sense that everything could have been created out of nothing (referring to the big bang theory). Hitchens replied by stating that not only is intelligent design untrue, but if it were true, intelligent would be the last thing it should be called. Stating:

You want your God to take responsibility for the huge number of collapsing starts, and imploding galaxies, and destroyed universes, and failed solar systems that have left us in this tiny corner on the one planet in this pity solar system that can support life some of the time on some of its surface, and you want a creator who’s filled this earth with species since life began 99 percent of which are extinct already, and this is some design isn’t it? (Hannity & Colmes)

            Intelligent design is not the only argument that has come up several times in debates which he has taken part in. Morality is always the next thing coming. Like intelligent design, he is always ready for it. Hitchens has always asked a question at almost every debate that he has been a part of. He has yet to have any takers for the question. Hitchens always gets questions on how one can be moral without a being that has a standard. Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? How can one without religion be as moral or have morals at all, if one of the prime goals of religion is to teach morals? Hitchens replies, “Can you name a single moral action performed, or a moral statement said by a believe that a non believer could of not said or done?” Hitchens always follows up this question by asking next, “Now, can you name a wicked thing that was done solely based on religion? You didn’t have to think twice did you (92nd StreetY)”.
            In fact, one could make an argument that this is the most common topic to be brought up in a debate against Hitchens is the morality one. Beth Rosenthal write of how Hitchens refers to religion “amounts to psychological abuse.” Rosenthal gives the impression that Christopher believes that if there were no religion the world would be a utopia (something Hitchens has never hinted too). Rosenthal goes on further to remind us that religion is not the only thing that causes harm in this world and atheists like Hitchens should stop pretending that is it.
            Christopher Hitchens as you would assume, has also defended the idea that America is a secular nation and the separation of church and state, while at the same time attacking the idea that America is a Christian nation. While on MSNBC discussing the very topic of America being founded as a secular or Christian nation, Christopher had a lot to say. When asked what does it mean when people say that America is a Christian nation? Hitchens responded, “The idea that America is a Christian nation is literally a meaningless statement. The constitution deliberately omits all mention of God let alone of Jesus”. Of course Hitchens opponent Ken Blackwell brought up the fact that the Declaration of Independence mentions that all men are created equal. Hitchens came back by stating, “Though the Declaration of Independence mentions a creator it very specifically does not say that this creator intervenes. Most of the people that wrote the declaration were deists not theists (Hardball)”.
            An issue that has struck Hitchens very hard has been the practice of genital mutilation or circumcision. Not always, but Hitchens commonly quotes Stephen Weinberg, where he says that when people are left to themselves, a bad person will do bad things, a good person will try and do good things, but if you want a good person to do a wicked thing that takes religion. The saying could not fit into another argument better than the one of circumcision. In a debate against Rabbi Harold Kushner at the Connecticut Forum, Hitchens was referring to circumcision when he said, “One of the reasons I call religion a poison is that it makes ordinary normal people and compels them, forces them, in some cases orders them, to do disgusting wicked unforgivable things”. Rabbi Kushner responded by saying, “My son cried more at his first haircut than he did at his Bris. And statistically the only long-term affect it seems to have on people is increasing their chances of winning a Nobel Prize”. After the audience finished their few seconds of laughter Hitchens then followed by stating the following,

I can’t find the compulsory mutilation of the genitals of children a subject for humor in that way. The full excision, not just the snip is fantastically painful, leads to trauma, leads to the dulling of the sexual relationship and can be life threatening. We have the records of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds in the United States who have died or have life had life threatening infections as a result of this disgusting practice. As a person as humane as yourself can sit here and think of that as a fit subject of humor shows what I mean. Religion makes morally normal people say and do disgusted wicked things, and you just proved my point.

            Christopher Hitchens is known for causing controversy for almost everywhere he goes. His views on religion alone make that understandable. When in Australia john B. Randwick, of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote in regards to Hitchens, “Science must be evil because it created the atomic bomb. Cars must be evil because they cause pollution. These things all have one thing in common: fallible human beings are responsible for carrying them out. Religion, like science and cars, is not the problem. The problem is that anything can be misinterpreted or manipulated for selfish gain”.

Hitchens on Jerry Falwell

            This would not be the only time that Hitchens would quarrel with someone who believed that America was a Christian nation. In fact Hitchens most popular opponent would not even recognize the separation of church and state. In fact when this opponent died Christopher Hitchens had a field day. Many know Christopher Hitchens not by his columns, books, debates, speeches, education, or commentary, but simply by his incredible harsh words in regards to Jerry Falwell. On Pat Robertson’s 700 Club the day after 9/11 Falwell gave his impression on who was to be blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers:

The ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this, throwing God out successfully with the help of the Federal Court system, out of public schools. The abortionists got to bare some blame for this because God will not be mocked when we destroy 40 million innocent babies. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternate lifestyle, the ACLU, people for the American way, all of them who try to secularize America, I point the finger and their face and say you helped this happen.

Because of that when Falwell died on May 15, 2007 many had great things to say about the legacy that Falwell had lives, Hitchens was not one of them. On an interview with Anderson Cooper Hitchens spoke his thoughts saying many things including, “It’s a petty there isn’t a Hell for him to go to” and calling him an “ugly little charlatan who proves one thing. That you can get away with the most extraordinary offences to morality and to truth if you’ll just get yourself called reverend”. Hitchens referred to the massive amount of media coverage showing his life work offensive to all that have some regard for truth. Hitchens went on to say the things that Falwell did to pollute the minds of his followers including pumping anti-Semitic views into American politics, and encouraged views that have help ruin the chances of peace in the Middle East by encouraging not give the land to those who already live there. Hitchens went on to say that in the Middle East, “Lots of people are going to die because of the nonsense preached by this man”. Saying that anyone who shared Falwell’s views about 9/11 should, “be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup”. This would not be the only time that Hitchens would portray his feeling for Falwell.
            The very next day Hitchens appeared on Hannity and Colmes and a repeat of the interview with Anderson Cooper was in the making. Colmes asked shouldn’t you let those close to him to have a few moments to celebrate his life and have some peace? Hitchens response was, “Well I don’t care whether his family’s feelings or hurt or not, but if they are they can take comfort from the extraordinary piety and stupidity and generally speaking uniformity of the coverage of the man’s death”. When guest Ralph Reed spoke about how are feeling should be with those that are grieving whether we liked Falwell or not Hitchens replied, “Oh come on play the world smallest violin. Listen, he established a business. A racket in my opinion, he was a religious business man in the same way that Mr. Ralph Reed is a religious entrepreneur. He’s left the business to his children. Let that console them”. Hitchens went to say that, “I think we have been rid of an extremely dangerous demo dog who lived by hatred of others, and prejudice, and who committed treason by saying that the United Sates deserved the attack upon it on September 11th”. The rest of the broadcast went back and forth between Hannity and Hitchens trying to get their points in, but Hitchens got the last word in saying, “If you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox.”

Hitchens Views on Politics

            One of Hitchens many great accomplishments was being named one of the top most influential liberals. In early 2009, Forbes listed Christopher Hitchens as one of the top 25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media. Specifically number 14. Forbes explains that Christopher Hitchens would, “Likely be aghast to find himself on this list.” There are several reasons why this may be so. First, unlike many liberals Hitchens is pro-life. I would not say that he is part of the pro-life movement for he does not try to impose this on anyone, nor try to persuade those that are pro-choice that they are killing a human. However this does not change the fact that he is still pro-life.
            Hitchens has also been a harsh critic on the Clintons as much as he has on Jerry Falwell. Hitchens does not portray almost anything that either of the Clintons has done to be beneficial for the country. He criticized Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky and saying that he has disgraced the office. He criticized Hilary Clinton in almost every possible way during her 2008 presidential campaign for the presidency. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Hitchens was brought on to discuss Hilary Clinton and Obama while they were both in the hunt for the nomination. It was the day after that Hilary Clinton had won a primary and gave her winning speech. Hitchens pointed out that in her speech she mentioned that she had won the delegates in the Florida and Michigan primaries, when in fact they were irrelevant. Hitchens also pointed out that she had not won in Florida and Michigan because the democratic national convention said they do not count, but she wants them to count. Going on to say that this means Hilary Clinton is going to fight it out to the very end (a prediction is which he was correct), instead of admitting that she has already lost and trying to unite her party. Saying, “Anyone who like me when they think about the Clinton’s thinks about zombies, thinks about the undead, thinks about steaks through the heart, silver bullets and so on has just received confirmation. It’s as bad as we thought it was going to be”. Hitchens went on to poetically add, “It’s terrifying. Before anyone noticed it she’s thinking delegate count and super delegates and what is the arm twisting that she’s going to be ready to do and is already exerting in the Democratic Party.”
            Beside his views on abortion and the Clintons, Hitchens has taken a firm ground on supporting the war on terror and believes that we should continue on with the fight. Christopher has been in one or two minor debates with host of Real Time, Bill Maher. Although they have the same general view on religion, the subject on how the Middle East should be dealt with, they do not. Hitchens was brought on and discussed whether Al-Qaida was in Iraq before United States troops were. Bill Maher believed that they were not present, while Hitchens did. Hitchens said,

Mr. Zarqawi (one of the main Al-Qaida leaders) was correctly identified in Iraq during the time Suddam Hussein was in power. No rival power would have been allowed inside Iraq during the time Suddam Hussein was in power. He was not a rival, he was a collaborator. So how come Mr. Zarqawi is in Northern Iraq trying to kill the Kurdish leadership, who is by coincidence Saddam’s main enemies. You can believe anything you like, but you have to believe a lot to say that that was coincidence.

            Christopher Hitchens has supported Former President George W. Bush’s foreign policy after the events of 9/11, but has taken much criticism for his views on the United States use of water boarding which is deemed as torture by the Geneva Convention. Because of this Hitchens was asked by Graydon Carter (editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair) if he would be willing to undergo the form of torture itself. Hitchens accepted. The practice did not last long to say the least. He lasted much shorter than he thought he would. Afterwards he said that he was wrong to try and hold his breath. The less you breathed the more the towel over your mouth will tighten the grip and it is a lose situation either way. He described it as smothering, yet at the same time drowning, going on to say that he can understand why someone would give up the location of a friend, or a relative in order to make it stop. However, he also stated, “But what if you didn’t have anything? What if they got the wrong guy? Then you would be in danger of losing your mind very quickly.”

Hitchens in Interviews and Discussions

As by now you have realized that Christopher Hitchens is not afraid to disagree and even make enemies. He has criticized and in some cases flat out attacked everyone from George Galloway, Mel Gibson, Cindy Sheehan, Ronald Reagan, to Michael Moore. However, one that could be added to this list is his brother, Peter who is a little over two years younger than Christopher. Christopher leans more toward the left, Left Europe and became an American citizen. Peter is on the right, and after spending much time in Russia and in America now lives in the heart of England. They disagree about many things from the Iraq War to religion and the idea of God. However for a special event, both brothers agreed to have a debate. They debated in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 2008.
            The debate that the brothers took part in was not the only appearances that the two agreed to appear on. Both brothers appeared on the BBC show Question Time. This time specifically discussing how long Britain should stay involved in Afghanistan. Besides debating on the major television news networks such as BBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and so on, Christopher Hitchens has appeared on many documentaries and interviews throughout his career. Two of the documentaries that he has appeared in are Expelled and Collision. Expelled was made by Ben Stein and focuses on how the theory of Intelligent Design being taught in high level universities is frowned upon. During an interview Hitchens was asked, what is your opinion on the overall idea of intelligent design? Hitchens replied, “The only thing intelligent about it is that you can get people to call it that”. In Collision, Hitchens took on Douglas Wilson who is a Pastor of Christ Church Moscow. The two debated the motion is Christianity good for the world? Collision only shows only one debate between the two, when in fact the two hit the road together, became good friends, and did a serious of debates.
            Hitchens has done several interviews throughout his ongoing career as well. One interview with reddit.com was where he only answered questions that were asked to him by members of reddit.com. There was no one giving the interview, just Hitchens getting questions by those who were a part of an online audience. Hitchens was asked what historical figures, movements, or books have been ignored or underemphasized in the public education of young people. His reply,

I think the study of the founding of the country. The emergence of the United States as the world first and only, still only secular democratic republic is terribly understudied these days. The likelihood, that there would have never been a revolution. Just been a rebellion if not for the sponsored ideas of people like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Instead kids learn about Washington crossing the Delaware.

            One question seemed to stick out because of the answer that it generated from Christopher. Obviously not every single issue, but on the grounds of religion Richard Dawkins and Hitchens seem to agree for the most part. They are both atheists; believe that the world would be far better off without religion, and believe that we could easily carry on without it. However one question promoted Hitchens to make a disagreement with Dawkins and I believe it should be noted. When asked do you believe that the word “brights” is an appropriate definition of the unbeliever. Hitchens replied,

I did quarrel with some of my comrades by saying that I thought to call ourselves brights would be in the first place very conceded, and in the second place very misleading. We do not say that of people who disagree with us that they are stupid. Many very, very intelligent people have been persuaded by Thomas Aquinas arguments for the existence of God for example. It’s not an IQ question. I thought it was a false issue and I’m rather glad to see that it has gone to some kind of eclipse recently.

            Christopher Hitchens has done much for the world of politics and philosophy. He has never backed down from a challenge, at least one that he had the option of doing so. He has always challenged those who have different beliefs then himself through respectable means, such as university debates. He has done a great deal for the world of literature with all of his columns and overall publishing. He has influenced a great number of people all over the world to become more rational thinkers. Something that this world will always need.

Works Cited Page

Christopher Hitchens - The Portable Atheist. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Joe Scarborough. Youtube/Christopher Hitchens - The Portable Atheist. MSNBC, 7 Jan. 2010. Web. 21 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbmszn1p6zo.

Christopher Hitchens Debates Jay Richards Part 8. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Jay Richards. Christopher Hitchens Debates Jay Richards Part 8. Stanford University, 23 July 2009. Web. 21 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHO7dYVRiAY&feature=related.

Christopher Hitchens on Clinton and Obama. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Joe Scarborough. Youtube/Christopher Hitchens on Clinton and Obama. Morning Joe, 11 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFTjgg57TpI.

Christopher Hitchens on Jerry Falwell. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Anderson Cooper. Youtube/Christopher Hitchens on Jerry Falwell. Anderson Cooper 360, 16 May 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIviufQ4APo.

Christopher Hitchens on Hannity & Colmes about Rev. Falwell's Death. Perf. Chrsitopher Hitchens and Sean Hannity and Ralph Reed. Youtube/Christopher Hitchens on Hannity & Colmes about Rev. Falwell's Death. Hannity & Colmes, 17 May 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4.

Christopher Hitchens V. Bill Maher. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher. Youtube/Christopher Hitchens V. Bill Maher. Real Time, 20 May 2008. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrzZLM0Tm4.

Christopher Hitchens V. Sean Hannity. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Sean Hannity. Christopher Hitchens V. Sean Hannity. Hannity and Colmes, 25 Nov. 2007. Web. 21 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU10wpgetNk.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dir. Nathan Frankowski. Perf. Ben Stein. Rocky Mountain Pictures, 2008. DVD.

Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11. Perf. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Youtube/Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11. The 700 Club, 13 Sept. 2001. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I.

Full Version: Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Shmuley Boteach. Full Version: Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God. 92nd Street Y, 8 Feb. 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ.

God-Is the Issue between Believers and Non-believers or Religions? Perf. Christopher Hitchens and. God-Is the Issue between Believers and Non-believers or Religions? Connecticut Forum, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLyQDS1fy_Y&feature=related.

Hardball: Christopher Hitchens vs Ken Blackwell on the US Being a Christian Nation. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Ken Blackwell. Youtube/Hardball: Christopher Hitchens vs Ken Blackwell on the US Being a Christian Nation. MSNBC, 8 Apr. 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISylK4g6UM.

Hitchens vs. Hitchens. Perf. Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens. Youtube/Hitchens vs. Hitchens. Center Valley State University, 7 Apr. 2008. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg.

Randwick, John B. "God's Harshest Critic Doesn't Allow for Fallible Humans; RELIGION." Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney] 3 Oct. 2009, First ed., NEWS AND FEATURES; Opinion sec.: 8. Print.

Reddit.com Interviews Christopher Hitchens. Perf. Christopher Hitchens. Youtube/reddit.com Interviews Christopher Hitchens. Reddit.com, 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Jl2iPPUtI.

Rosenthal, Beth. "Only Religion Can Teach Morality and Ethics." Greenhaven Press [Detroit] 2009, Opposing Viewpoints: Atheism sec. Print.

Wang, Sam. "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media." Princeton.edu. Princeton, 23 Jan. 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://election.princeton.edu/2009/01/23/forbess-top-25-liberals/.
Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR). Perf. Christopher Hithens. Youtube/Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR). Vanity Fair, 2 July 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58.