Important points on both sides of the issue deserve our attention. Take the discussion here with you to the dinner table, the church gathering, the movie night, and the water cooler. You don't have to be confrontational. You don't even have to voice your disagreement. Raise the subject and then ask people questions about their beliefs and opinions. Don't be sarcastic, don't be ironic. Ask questions you really want to know the answer to. When people see that you're open to understanding them and possibly agreeing with them, they'll reciprocate.
Don't waste time preaching to the choir. Think of someone you disagree with, find common ground and build your foundation on that ground. If things start to get nasty in a discussion, move back. Say things like "We don't have to talk about this," and, "I don't want to upset you." Let anyone who gets upset in a discussion know that you care more about them than about being right. Apologize if you have to.
My personal approach to this issue is based on the idea that our movement won't work if it is all about which side can be louder, more emotional, or more dramatic. Logic and reason linger much longer than the anger and revulsion people feel when they're first confronted with the possibility that they're wrong. Work on keeping calm during a discussion and you'll be more effective.
Don't waste your time hounding someone who doesn't want to talk or listen. My experience is that most people are thoughtful and want to understand. But some people can't be reached. If someone seems too afraid, or if they are hell-bent on being a victim, move on. Some people are more oppressed by their own fears and beliefs than gays are by the government or the church. Let those people go, or you'll find yourself trapped with them in their web of guilt.
Most importantly, LISTEN! Listen to what people are saying and think about it. Always accept that you might be wrong. I love writing down arguments I hear and formulating a reasoned and well-thought response. Think critically about your own positions and consider how new ideas and arguments factor into your stance. If you hear a good argument, write it down and craft a written response (Avoid giving people written responses to their thoughts and beliefs - they tend not to receive this sort of gesture well). Instead, mull over your response and bring it up the next time you find a window. In the mean time, post it here - even if you disagree! Your well-articulated thoughts and responses can help others inject more substance in their daily discussions. Even if we disagree, I hope you'll join me in promoting a more substantive dialogue.
Gay Pride: A Personal View
I have to admit that I have never really been interested in what people call "Gay Pride". I've never understood it. I don't think my personal homosexuality has been a choice. The idea that we should be proud of some characteristic that isn't a choice seems a little inconsistent and hypocritical to me. How can gay pride be legitimate and reasonable when white pride is known to be hate-mongering? If I say I am proud to be gay, where does that leave the non-gay? I have long questioned the rationale behind gay-pride.
But I stumbled upon the well-referenced Wikipedia article about the Stonewall Riots recently. If you have a chance to visit the page, it paints an excellent picture of the events that unfolded in the middle of the past century.
Before reading the article and its references, I had no idea that there was actually a time in America when law enforcement could arrest people simply under suspicion of being gay. Not only were law enforcement empowered to make these arrests, they frequently exercised that power, systematically arresting untold numbers of gays while ignoring the mafia bosses that owned and operated the gay bars they were raiding. The police were accepting money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the organized crime that was exploding in New York City.
The first Gay Pride Parade was a declaration of equality under the law. Gays took to the streets of New York City at the risk of being arrested, simply because they were gay.
This gave the idea of gay pride a completely new meaning to me. I had no idea that there was actually a time in our country when a person could and likely would be arrested for being gay. To this day, nearly half a decade later, we continue to struggle for equality under the law. It frightened me to think how close we are to those days when gay bars were raided like crack houses, and men were by law banned from wearing women's clothing.
There's a great story from the Stonewall Riots about a blockade of police marching toward a group of gays and transvestites. The police are waving their clubs in the air when the crowd before them starts mockingly saluting and marching, and slowly break into a chorus line kicking routine while the police continue waving their clubs in the air.
The imagery provided paints an unforgettable picture of the state enforcing gender roles. It made me think about the modern anti-gay marriage campaigns and the statement they make about the equality of heterosexual gender roles. How, after all, can men and women be equal if they aren't allowed to make the same choices in who they marry? I've long felt the homosexual movement was a gender equality issue, not a sexual orientation issue. The history of the Stonewall Riots helped me better understand the nature of gender conflict in this country. I hope you'll take the time to visit the Wikipedia page and read on to other sources as well.
But I stumbled upon the well-referenced Wikipedia article about the Stonewall Riots recently. If you have a chance to visit the page, it paints an excellent picture of the events that unfolded in the middle of the past century.
Before reading the article and its references, I had no idea that there was actually a time in America when law enforcement could arrest people simply under suspicion of being gay. Not only were law enforcement empowered to make these arrests, they frequently exercised that power, systematically arresting untold numbers of gays while ignoring the mafia bosses that owned and operated the gay bars they were raiding. The police were accepting money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the organized crime that was exploding in New York City.
The first Gay Pride Parade was a declaration of equality under the law. Gays took to the streets of New York City at the risk of being arrested, simply because they were gay.
This gave the idea of gay pride a completely new meaning to me. I had no idea that there was actually a time in our country when a person could and likely would be arrested for being gay. To this day, nearly half a decade later, we continue to struggle for equality under the law. It frightened me to think how close we are to those days when gay bars were raided like crack houses, and men were by law banned from wearing women's clothing.
There's a great story from the Stonewall Riots about a blockade of police marching toward a group of gays and transvestites. The police are waving their clubs in the air when the crowd before them starts mockingly saluting and marching, and slowly break into a chorus line kicking routine while the police continue waving their clubs in the air.
The imagery provided paints an unforgettable picture of the state enforcing gender roles. It made me think about the modern anti-gay marriage campaigns and the statement they make about the equality of heterosexual gender roles. How, after all, can men and women be equal if they aren't allowed to make the same choices in who they marry? I've long felt the homosexual movement was a gender equality issue, not a sexual orientation issue. The history of the Stonewall Riots helped me better understand the nature of gender conflict in this country. I hope you'll take the time to visit the Wikipedia page and read on to other sources as well.
The American Boundary: Where Must We Stop?
The question is not ours alone. Each generation of Americans must grapple with the role of government. Where do the collective purposes and entitlements of government stop? Conversely, where do the individual purposes and entitlements of the citizen begin?
Conservatives and Liberals have long argued over “big” and “small” government. Recently, Barack Obama declared that what Americans needed was not bigger or smaller government, but smarter government. But what is smarter? Are the victimless pleasures (homosexuality, recreational drug use, etc.) of the individual worth less than the tradition-based morality of the community? Does the community have an obligation to be consistent in its distribution and protection of rights?
We protect the right of the alcoholic to feed and perpetuate her addiction, even at the expense of her children’s well-being, but we criminalize even moderate and minimal use of marijuana. We permit heterosexuals to marry and have children though they may be poor, obese, criminals, alcoholics, abusive, handicap, interracial, elderly, etc. Yet we do not extend to homosexuals the rights protected for every other class of American. What is the reasoning? Why is one allowed and the other not?
The only answer is religion. Religious morality has long been the most effective way to dehumanize and subjugate any given group of humans for a shared characteristic. When there is no reason for a distinction between people, religion swoops in and saves the day for those needing to maintain their superiority. This dehumanization and subjugation were felt tremendously by the founding fathers and mothers. They knew exactly what it meant to be denied basic human rights. They formed our government in an effort to make the first place in the world where citizens could pursue happiness free from the shackles of religious dogma, tradition and ideology.
Presently, religious extremists and misguided moderates have molded government into an extension of the church with regard to homosexuality. The government enforces and funds a religious morality that dismisses and marginalizes homosexuals. Our founders recognized this intrusive use of government. They knew the answer to the question "Where must we stop?": Religion. It is the American Boundary.
To maintain this boundary, we must recognize the intrusion of religion and tradition. Preventing that intrusion is the only way to protect the citizen while also protecting the citizenry. Where religious morality restricts the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, we have violated the American Boundary. Where the government allows religious morality, even the majority's, to restrict the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, especially a minority, the government has failed. The majority has no special claim to religious superiority. Their religious morality is protected from government intrusion in their homes, churches and personal lives. But so is the minority’s. We must not allow legislation to be rooted in scripture and religious tenants. Such a disallowment facilitates the domestic tranquility so important to our prosperity. Protecting domestic tranquility means protecting the American Boundary.
There are those who disagree that legislation should not be guided by scripture or religious tenants. But what are their political opinions more broadly than gay marriage? What are their opinions on interracial marriage, slavery, poverty, etc.? A range of political issues are addressed in the bible. Does the anti-gay Christian or Muslim believe that all the tenants of scripture should be legislated? If not, which ones shouldn’t and why? What method do they use to discern which tenants should be legislated and which should not? What are their reasons for legislating this verse of scripture and not this other? Is there a predictable and consistent system to their legislative biblical interpretation, or is their system unpredictable and inconsistent? I think we will find that for people who advocate the legislating of scriptural verse and tenants, their system must by definition be both unpredictable and inconsistent.
But, as we have loved to proclaim, this is America; and a legal system that uses unpredictable and inconsistent interpretations of religion to distribute and protect the rights of its citizens is exactly what the founders were trying to escape. It’s exactly what they were protecting us from when they built our government. The boundaries they established so long ago were rooted in the human needs for religious and social freedom to pursue and define our own humanity under a government that sees and treats us each equally. The growing inequality in state and federal legislation across this country shelters those who would carry religious hatred and zealotry across the American Boundary and into the private lives of an unwilling minority. We must legalize gay marriage to restore the justice and equality that protect our citizens from those who don't know or don't care where to stop.
Conservatives and Liberals have long argued over “big” and “small” government. Recently, Barack Obama declared that what Americans needed was not bigger or smaller government, but smarter government. But what is smarter? Are the victimless pleasures (homosexuality, recreational drug use, etc.) of the individual worth less than the tradition-based morality of the community? Does the community have an obligation to be consistent in its distribution and protection of rights?
We protect the right of the alcoholic to feed and perpetuate her addiction, even at the expense of her children’s well-being, but we criminalize even moderate and minimal use of marijuana. We permit heterosexuals to marry and have children though they may be poor, obese, criminals, alcoholics, abusive, handicap, interracial, elderly, etc. Yet we do not extend to homosexuals the rights protected for every other class of American. What is the reasoning? Why is one allowed and the other not?
The only answer is religion. Religious morality has long been the most effective way to dehumanize and subjugate any given group of humans for a shared characteristic. When there is no reason for a distinction between people, religion swoops in and saves the day for those needing to maintain their superiority. This dehumanization and subjugation were felt tremendously by the founding fathers and mothers. They knew exactly what it meant to be denied basic human rights. They formed our government in an effort to make the first place in the world where citizens could pursue happiness free from the shackles of religious dogma, tradition and ideology.
Presently, religious extremists and misguided moderates have molded government into an extension of the church with regard to homosexuality. The government enforces and funds a religious morality that dismisses and marginalizes homosexuals. Our founders recognized this intrusive use of government. They knew the answer to the question "Where must we stop?": Religion. It is the American Boundary.
To maintain this boundary, we must recognize the intrusion of religion and tradition. Preventing that intrusion is the only way to protect the citizen while also protecting the citizenry. Where religious morality restricts the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, we have violated the American Boundary. Where the government allows religious morality, even the majority's, to restrict the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, especially a minority, the government has failed. The majority has no special claim to religious superiority. Their religious morality is protected from government intrusion in their homes, churches and personal lives. But so is the minority’s. We must not allow legislation to be rooted in scripture and religious tenants. Such a disallowment facilitates the domestic tranquility so important to our prosperity. Protecting domestic tranquility means protecting the American Boundary.
There are those who disagree that legislation should not be guided by scripture or religious tenants. But what are their political opinions more broadly than gay marriage? What are their opinions on interracial marriage, slavery, poverty, etc.? A range of political issues are addressed in the bible. Does the anti-gay Christian or Muslim believe that all the tenants of scripture should be legislated? If not, which ones shouldn’t and why? What method do they use to discern which tenants should be legislated and which should not? What are their reasons for legislating this verse of scripture and not this other? Is there a predictable and consistent system to their legislative biblical interpretation, or is their system unpredictable and inconsistent? I think we will find that for people who advocate the legislating of scriptural verse and tenants, their system must by definition be both unpredictable and inconsistent.
But, as we have loved to proclaim, this is America; and a legal system that uses unpredictable and inconsistent interpretations of religion to distribute and protect the rights of its citizens is exactly what the founders were trying to escape. It’s exactly what they were protecting us from when they built our government. The boundaries they established so long ago were rooted in the human needs for religious and social freedom to pursue and define our own humanity under a government that sees and treats us each equally. The growing inequality in state and federal legislation across this country shelters those who would carry religious hatred and zealotry across the American Boundary and into the private lives of an unwilling minority. We must legalize gay marriage to restore the justice and equality that protect our citizens from those who don't know or don't care where to stop.
Argument 6: The Psychological Development of Homosexuals
I've taken a comment left by a friend of mine, edited it, and used it as Argument 6. It's a bit lengthier than the other arguments, but it's length is mitigated by its thoughtful and articulate construction. The psychology presented is one of many takes on the social development of homosexuals, and it's perfectly valid, reasonable, and - for many homosexuals in our society - accurate, which is why I felt it was worth addressing.
I also want to quickly point out that I'm not responding to my friend, but to those who would take his argument a step further and use it to advocate policy. He did not do that, and doesn't follow the anti-gay movement.
Argument 6:
Behavioral studies have shown there are 3 stages of homosexuality: (1) Homosexual urges or thoughts, (2) acting on these urges or thoughts, (3) accepting homosexual identity (when an individual goes from doing homosexual acts to actually accepting what they are doing as part of their identity).
So is homosexuality a choice? Yes, because one is acting on impulses one receives. And since I believe in libertarian free will then I believe that partaking in homosexual acts or being gay are choices.
Where do these impulses come from and are they natural? Natural like God's original intent? No. Sin is natural to all humans because we are sinful creatures but that doesn't mean that God's intent was for us to sin or that it's okay to sin. It isn't always okay to do what's natural.
If we don't know where these impulses come from, can we still "blame" people for acting homosexually? Well, what if we were to look at the reasoning behind another case. Consider murderers. They may have psychological issues that are very different from the "normal" person's. There may be an abundance of people (10%) that have these issues. These psychological issues may make them more likely to commit murder.
Similarly, some people have stronger homosexual tendencies than others. We still blame murderers when they kill people. So, gays can still be blamed for committing homosexual acts. Sure, when we find out that a murderer grew up in a rough neighborhood (or his parents were divorced or abusive, or he didn't have many friends when he was a kid or he has a psychological disorder) we see these as reasons why he may be more inclined to act the way he did, but these circumstances don't excuse him from what he's done. NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO EQUATE GAYS WITH MURDERERS. THIS ANALOGY IS MEANT TO POINT OUT THE SIMILARITY ON ACTING ON IMPULSES, STRONG OR WEAK, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL AS THEY MAY BE.
So acting homosexually and being gay are choices, the impulses or tendencies are not. There is no blame to be held for having impulses beyond our control, but there is blame for acting on them. Acting on any other sinful impulse makes one blameworthy of sin but to me homosexuality is no different.
My Response:
There’s an argument from the rightists, the homophobic base, that if a homosexual wants to circumvent discrimination, s/he can just “act straight” and not tell people (in honor of Elijah Anderson, we’ll call this the switch approach).
That’s fine. Except that it requires a constant effort to deceive, a constant looking over the shoulder, a scheduled and meticulous coordination of lies – lies that breed more lies, in a cycle that can cause a broad range of psychological problems.
There is this sense among advocates of the switch approach that homosexuals, if they didn’t want to be treated worse, could simply turn the “gayness” on and off. My friend argues that homosexuality is a choice because a person doesn’t have to act on their homosexuality or accept it. The use of the psychological argument relies on the assumption that you’re not truly a homosexual until you act on it and accept it.
But I wonder how accurate that really is. I think psychologists would agree that a person can be homosexual even if they don’t act on their urges and don’t accept their homosexuality. The psychology of homosexuality, like the psychology of so much else, is largely a result of socially constructed roles and expectations. Even if a person concedes to those roles and expectations and refuses to act on their homosexual urges or accept them, I don’t think we would expect that they should start experiencing heterosexual urges so much as a deep and corrosive self-hatred. What really happens when the homosexual urges and identity are rejected by a person experiencing exclusively homosexual urges? It’s an important question when religious rightists are controlling social expectations and advocating anti-gay policy.
With regard to the murderer analogy. I think this is a valuable and important analogy. Would we have a basis for outlawing murder if there were (against all logic and reason) no victim? What if murder were really like homosexuality in the sense the it involved consenting adults behaving in a way that didn't result in physical, financial, or emotional victimization? If there was no reason but religious ideology to outlaw murder, would we still have legitimate legal grounds for banning murder?
Returning to the psychology of homosexuality, I wonder if a psychologist agreed with the psychological process presented, would they encourage a gay client to act on and accept his or her homosexual urges, or would they look at the individual as someone with a disorder and discourage them from acting on their impulses? If we are to cite psychologists and use their work in constructing our opinions on social policy, I think we must ask them specifically, "What would you advise a gay client to do?"
That a person can resist their sexuality does not mean that they should. As I have said and as my friend who presented Argument 6 agrees, there is no reason but religious ideology to deny one's homosexual impulses or identity. But the issue of religion is, I fear, not of great use in a substantive dialogue between people of differing ideologies. We must find a common ground. But in this case, as in so many cases, religion doesn't represent any common humanity between people: it defines their divisions. If the psychology of homosexuality is going to be used in an argument against homosexual equality, we need to complete the argument by explaining why homosexuals should resist their natural urges. "Because they can" is not a reasonable standard. Nor is it reasonable to expect one person to act on the religious beliefs of another. Such an expectation should have no place in law. As our founders understood (and as I have elaborated on in earlier arguments), using religion as an ingredient in law creates a recipe for disaster.
I also want to quickly point out that I'm not responding to my friend, but to those who would take his argument a step further and use it to advocate policy. He did not do that, and doesn't follow the anti-gay movement.
Argument 6:
Behavioral studies have shown there are 3 stages of homosexuality: (1) Homosexual urges or thoughts, (2) acting on these urges or thoughts, (3) accepting homosexual identity (when an individual goes from doing homosexual acts to actually accepting what they are doing as part of their identity).
So is homosexuality a choice? Yes, because one is acting on impulses one receives. And since I believe in libertarian free will then I believe that partaking in homosexual acts or being gay are choices.
Where do these impulses come from and are they natural? Natural like God's original intent? No. Sin is natural to all humans because we are sinful creatures but that doesn't mean that God's intent was for us to sin or that it's okay to sin. It isn't always okay to do what's natural.
If we don't know where these impulses come from, can we still "blame" people for acting homosexually? Well, what if we were to look at the reasoning behind another case. Consider murderers. They may have psychological issues that are very different from the "normal" person's. There may be an abundance of people (10%) that have these issues. These psychological issues may make them more likely to commit murder.
Similarly, some people have stronger homosexual tendencies than others. We still blame murderers when they kill people. So, gays can still be blamed for committing homosexual acts. Sure, when we find out that a murderer grew up in a rough neighborhood (or his parents were divorced or abusive, or he didn't have many friends when he was a kid or he has a psychological disorder) we see these as reasons why he may be more inclined to act the way he did, but these circumstances don't excuse him from what he's done. NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO EQUATE GAYS WITH MURDERERS. THIS ANALOGY IS MEANT TO POINT OUT THE SIMILARITY ON ACTING ON IMPULSES, STRONG OR WEAK, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL AS THEY MAY BE.
So acting homosexually and being gay are choices, the impulses or tendencies are not. There is no blame to be held for having impulses beyond our control, but there is blame for acting on them. Acting on any other sinful impulse makes one blameworthy of sin but to me homosexuality is no different.
My Response:
There’s an argument from the rightists, the homophobic base, that if a homosexual wants to circumvent discrimination, s/he can just “act straight” and not tell people (in honor of Elijah Anderson, we’ll call this the switch approach).
That’s fine. Except that it requires a constant effort to deceive, a constant looking over the shoulder, a scheduled and meticulous coordination of lies – lies that breed more lies, in a cycle that can cause a broad range of psychological problems.
There is this sense among advocates of the switch approach that homosexuals, if they didn’t want to be treated worse, could simply turn the “gayness” on and off. My friend argues that homosexuality is a choice because a person doesn’t have to act on their homosexuality or accept it. The use of the psychological argument relies on the assumption that you’re not truly a homosexual until you act on it and accept it.
But I wonder how accurate that really is. I think psychologists would agree that a person can be homosexual even if they don’t act on their urges and don’t accept their homosexuality. The psychology of homosexuality, like the psychology of so much else, is largely a result of socially constructed roles and expectations. Even if a person concedes to those roles and expectations and refuses to act on their homosexual urges or accept them, I don’t think we would expect that they should start experiencing heterosexual urges so much as a deep and corrosive self-hatred. What really happens when the homosexual urges and identity are rejected by a person experiencing exclusively homosexual urges? It’s an important question when religious rightists are controlling social expectations and advocating anti-gay policy.
With regard to the murderer analogy. I think this is a valuable and important analogy. Would we have a basis for outlawing murder if there were (against all logic and reason) no victim? What if murder were really like homosexuality in the sense the it involved consenting adults behaving in a way that didn't result in physical, financial, or emotional victimization? If there was no reason but religious ideology to outlaw murder, would we still have legitimate legal grounds for banning murder?
Returning to the psychology of homosexuality, I wonder if a psychologist agreed with the psychological process presented, would they encourage a gay client to act on and accept his or her homosexual urges, or would they look at the individual as someone with a disorder and discourage them from acting on their impulses? If we are to cite psychologists and use their work in constructing our opinions on social policy, I think we must ask them specifically, "What would you advise a gay client to do?"
That a person can resist their sexuality does not mean that they should. As I have said and as my friend who presented Argument 6 agrees, there is no reason but religious ideology to deny one's homosexual impulses or identity. But the issue of religion is, I fear, not of great use in a substantive dialogue between people of differing ideologies. We must find a common ground. But in this case, as in so many cases, religion doesn't represent any common humanity between people: it defines their divisions. If the psychology of homosexuality is going to be used in an argument against homosexual equality, we need to complete the argument by explaining why homosexuals should resist their natural urges. "Because they can" is not a reasonable standard. Nor is it reasonable to expect one person to act on the religious beliefs of another. Such an expectation should have no place in law. As our founders understood (and as I have elaborated on in earlier arguments), using religion as an ingredient in law creates a recipe for disaster.
Argument 5: Homosexuality is a Choice/Immoral.
The reasoning of the rightist argument that homosexuals should have unequal protection under the law finds refuge in the notion that homosexuality is somehow a choice – the same way that stealing or lying is a choice. They are each immoral, and we shouldn’t reward immoral behavior. So gays should not be extended the right to marry (or the same protections under the law generally).
What if homosexuality is a choice? Isn’t religion also a choice? As an American, I have inherited the right to define my own humanity. A Christian rightist can define their humanity by choosing not to be gay. But they make that choice for religious reasons. Why should my rights be restricted for making a different choice? Would Christian rightists legislate restricting the rights of Jews, Muslims, or Scientologists? No such legislation would be allowed under the First Amendment.
I contend that the First Amendment binds the government to respect and protect our religious choices. As sexual preference can be a religious choice, the government must under the first amendment respect and protect the sexual preference we choose.
The only basis for discriminating against homosexuals is religious belief, which happens to be the only reason for discriminating against Muslims, Jews, or any other person who adheres to a belief system that differs from one’s own. Homosexuals are a group particularly vulnerable to religious discrimination and equal protection under the law must extend especially to them if for no other reason than the protection of religious freedom. If we follow the religious rightist’s reasoning, religion and sexuality are choices equally. Both are protected by our founding documents.
What if homosexuality is a choice? Isn’t religion also a choice? As an American, I have inherited the right to define my own humanity. A Christian rightist can define their humanity by choosing not to be gay. But they make that choice for religious reasons. Why should my rights be restricted for making a different choice? Would Christian rightists legislate restricting the rights of Jews, Muslims, or Scientologists? No such legislation would be allowed under the First Amendment.
I contend that the First Amendment binds the government to respect and protect our religious choices. As sexual preference can be a religious choice, the government must under the first amendment respect and protect the sexual preference we choose.
The only basis for discriminating against homosexuals is religious belief, which happens to be the only reason for discriminating against Muslims, Jews, or any other person who adheres to a belief system that differs from one’s own. Homosexuals are a group particularly vulnerable to religious discrimination and equal protection under the law must extend especially to them if for no other reason than the protection of religious freedom. If we follow the religious rightist’s reasoning, religion and sexuality are choices equally. Both are protected by our founding documents.
Gay Relationships Don't Work
The following is taken from GayTruth:
MYTH:Gay relationships don't last as long as straight relationships.
They just don't work.
TRUTH:
Statistically, it CAN be said, on average, that gay relationships don't last as long; especially between two men.
Although it is easy to conclude that this is a direct result of their sexual orientation, we require a deeper insight in order to reveal the truth.
Can we conclude, in a similar manner, that couples between different cultures won't work? Or that partners where parents don't approve of the relationship might just as well not happen? Can we then blindly say that inter-race coupling or ones that aren't supported by parent figures aren't as valid? Or do we need to look at the way society marginalises and what effect that has on these couples?
Gay people struggle to nurture their relationships in a society that still offers none of the same support heterosexual couples value. There are internal and external problems faced by two men or two women as they create a life together, that heterosexual couples might just never experience. Some of these may even be subconscious.
A few examples:
Although it is easy to conclude that this is a direct result of their sexual orientation, we require a deeper insight in order to reveal the truth.
Can we conclude, in a similar manner, that couples between different cultures won't work? Or that partners where parents don't approve of the relationship might just as well not happen? Can we then blindly say that inter-race coupling or ones that aren't supported by parent figures aren't as valid? Or do we need to look at the way society marginalises and what effect that has on these couples?
Gay people struggle to nurture their relationships in a society that still offers none of the same support heterosexual couples value. There are internal and external problems faced by two men or two women as they create a life together, that heterosexual couples might just never experience. Some of these may even be subconscious.
A few examples:
- inability to marry under the law
- issues preventing couples from adopting
- conflicting feelings based on religious beliefs
- parents unacceptability of child's homosexuality
- society's views/beliefs of homosexual relationships
- lack of visible examples of long lasting gay relationships
- subconscious self-sabotaging of relationships based on years of negative internalising
The truth is, committed relationships are more dependent on society approval than we think. The little "pats on the back" that help re-enforce its validity. The "congratulations" from strangers, the imagery we see everyday on TV, the grandparents celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary, Ken and Barbie dolls...
The truth is, there are many, many gay relationships out there that have survived longer than most heterosexual marriages. These are sadly hidden from both the homosexual and gay community. After just a little digging, our promo video shows just a fraction of the hundreds of gay couples and families who "work". Wonderfully.
There is a lot to cover on this topic. Thankfully it has been addressed in detail by Betty Berzon, in her book "Permanent Partners : Building Gay and Lesbian Relationships That Last". With this, comes our first reading recommendation.
There is a lot to cover on this topic. Thankfully it has been addressed in detail by Betty Berzon, in her book "Permanent Partners : Building Gay and Lesbian Relationships That Last". With this, comes our first reading recommendation.
Further reading recommendations:
Argument 4: Marriage is a tradition that goes back for thousands of years. It has always been between a man and a woman.
Take note of the people that use this argument. It betrays a flawed and dire world view. In the past several thousand years, one man one woman marriage has never been the norm. Monogamous matrimony has never been the state of most human relationships. Polygamous relationships have flourished throughout human history. In fact, the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook conducted a study of 1231 world societies from 1960 to 1980 and found that only 186 were monogamous. The rest of the societies practiced some form of polygamy, bigamy, or group marriage, and there’s an argument to be made that within those 186 monogamous societies, serial monogamy is equally out of line with tradition, since for most of its history, the Judeo-Christian tradition prohibited divorce.
A recent article from a former actor summated the position of Proposition 8 supporters in California as follows: “They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.”
Forgoing the obvious factual error of the statement, let’s examine the merits of its reasoning. Can we, as a country rooted in freedom from religious prosecution, begin legislating religious tenants as long as they are in line with “5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion”? I contend that we can not. After all, other religious tenants meet this standard: Slavery, racism, violence, and the subjugation of women are just a few such tenants (Christian passages: Matthew 18:25, Mark 14:66, Luke 12:45-48, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11; Hebrew Passages: Job 1:8, Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:1-4, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Exodus 21:8, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Exodus 22:3, II Kings 4:1, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Numbers 31:28-47, 2 Samuel 9:10, Exodus 20:10; Passages of the Quran: 33:50, 23:5, 70:30, 24:34, 4:24, 4:92, 5:89, 58:3, 24:33, 90:10; Passages from Bukhari’s Hadith: Volume 1-Passages 29, 439, 661 Volume 7 Passages 734, 344, 845, 341, 352, 371, 410, 413, 654, ch. 22, ch. 23 Volume 5 Passages 541, 637, 512, 67, 182, 50, Volume 9, Passage 462, 293, 296, 277, 100, 80, ch. 23, ch. 32. The list goes on and on: see http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm, http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Chris Hedges, Simon and Schuster, 2008).
The aim here is not to demonize religion. I could easily present a list fifty times as long of beautiful, inspiring religious verse that speaks to our common humanity – verses from each of the major religions. But then again why would I? No one is advocating a constitutional amendment to protect the Golden Rule.
The contention raised by citing the passages above is whether or not scripture is a legitimate source of moral authority. How, we ask, can documents that so clearly permit immoral behavior be guides for morality?
One answer to this contention addresses the biblical references to slavery. Slavery in the bible, the answer goes, was not the same as the race-based slavery practiced in the U.S. and other areas of the world over the first century or so of our nation’s history. Bible followers who are thoughtful enough to advance this distinction point out that biblical slaves were often “Slaves by Choice” (for those of you interested, this happens to be the title of a short, brilliant and very inspiring book by Estienne de la Boetie).
It’s a logical distinction that serves to restore the Bible’s moral authority – but only for a moment. Because the next question we ask is: If the slavery in the Bible was a morally acceptable form that differed from the race-based form, then would followers of the Bible be comfortable with the Biblical form of slavery in today’s society? Would they advocate and vote for laws establishing and promoting Christian, Biblically-based, strictly defined slavery within our country, just as they have advocated for the Christian, Biblically-based, strictly defined marriage? Both are equally oppressive. Both violate the American tradition of equality under the law.
The litmus test offered by our nearly forgotten friend was “5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion.” I contend that virtue may exist WITHIN tradition, but it does not exist BECAUSE of tradition.
After all, America itself has existed for only a little less than two and a half centuries. Until our nation was founded, no other nation guaranteed the human freedoms we do. Yet the threats to those freedoms stretch back into history far beyond the founding of this nation. Are we to take seriously the notion that restriction and inequality are better than liberty and equality, simply because of tradition? Our young republic was formed by men and women who challenged the Divine Right of Kings, a tradition that used God to justify oppression and inequality. They paid their taxes and obeyed the laws, and yet they were not given equal treatment under the law. Is the parallel between their situation and ours not obvious? America’s very founding broke traditions long thought to be the will of God. We do a great disservice to our forefathers and mothers and all who have fought and died for this country when we allow any group, even the majority, to legislate inequality on the basis of religious tradition.
A recent article from a former actor summated the position of Proposition 8 supporters in California as follows: “They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.”
Forgoing the obvious factual error of the statement, let’s examine the merits of its reasoning. Can we, as a country rooted in freedom from religious prosecution, begin legislating religious tenants as long as they are in line with “5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion”? I contend that we can not. After all, other religious tenants meet this standard: Slavery, racism, violence, and the subjugation of women are just a few such tenants (Christian passages: Matthew 18:25, Mark 14:66, Luke 12:45-48, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11; Hebrew Passages: Job 1:8, Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:1-4, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Exodus 21:8, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Exodus 22:3, II Kings 4:1, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Numbers 31:28-47, 2 Samuel 9:10, Exodus 20:10; Passages of the Quran: 33:50, 23:5, 70:30, 24:34, 4:24, 4:92, 5:89, 58:3, 24:33, 90:10; Passages from Bukhari’s Hadith: Volume 1-Passages 29, 439, 661 Volume 7 Passages 734, 344, 845, 341, 352, 371, 410, 413, 654, ch. 22, ch. 23 Volume 5 Passages 541, 637, 512, 67, 182, 50, Volume 9, Passage 462, 293, 296, 277, 100, 80, ch. 23, ch. 32. The list goes on and on: see http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm, http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Chris Hedges, Simon and Schuster, 2008).
The aim here is not to demonize religion. I could easily present a list fifty times as long of beautiful, inspiring religious verse that speaks to our common humanity – verses from each of the major religions. But then again why would I? No one is advocating a constitutional amendment to protect the Golden Rule.
The contention raised by citing the passages above is whether or not scripture is a legitimate source of moral authority. How, we ask, can documents that so clearly permit immoral behavior be guides for morality?
One answer to this contention addresses the biblical references to slavery. Slavery in the bible, the answer goes, was not the same as the race-based slavery practiced in the U.S. and other areas of the world over the first century or so of our nation’s history. Bible followers who are thoughtful enough to advance this distinction point out that biblical slaves were often “Slaves by Choice” (for those of you interested, this happens to be the title of a short, brilliant and very inspiring book by Estienne de la Boetie).
It’s a logical distinction that serves to restore the Bible’s moral authority – but only for a moment. Because the next question we ask is: If the slavery in the Bible was a morally acceptable form that differed from the race-based form, then would followers of the Bible be comfortable with the Biblical form of slavery in today’s society? Would they advocate and vote for laws establishing and promoting Christian, Biblically-based, strictly defined slavery within our country, just as they have advocated for the Christian, Biblically-based, strictly defined marriage? Both are equally oppressive. Both violate the American tradition of equality under the law.
The litmus test offered by our nearly forgotten friend was “5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion.” I contend that virtue may exist WITHIN tradition, but it does not exist BECAUSE of tradition.
After all, America itself has existed for only a little less than two and a half centuries. Until our nation was founded, no other nation guaranteed the human freedoms we do. Yet the threats to those freedoms stretch back into history far beyond the founding of this nation. Are we to take seriously the notion that restriction and inequality are better than liberty and equality, simply because of tradition? Our young republic was formed by men and women who challenged the Divine Right of Kings, a tradition that used God to justify oppression and inequality. They paid their taxes and obeyed the laws, and yet they were not given equal treatment under the law. Is the parallel between their situation and ours not obvious? America’s very founding broke traditions long thought to be the will of God. We do a great disservice to our forefathers and mothers and all who have fought and died for this country when we allow any group, even the majority, to legislate inequality on the basis of religious tradition.
Argument 3: The People's Will, the Will of the Majority, is for Gays not to Marry.
This is the most powerful argument that prohibitionists have in their armory. That is: "Our country operates under majority rule. The will of the majority is that gay marriage not be legal (Often prohibitionists go on to complain about the courts' overreaching activism in denying states the right to decide the issue of gay marriage for themselves)."
California 's Proposition 8 and Florida
Yet as an equalist, every sense of justice I have is violated by allowing the will of the people to subvert the liberty of homosexuals. Let me put that a different way: Every sense of justice I have is violated by allowing the will of the majority to subvert the liberty of the minority. Can we reconcile our dedication to the rule of democracy with our belief that homosexuals are entitled to equal rights? I think we can.
Let's turn once more to the founding documents, through which our forefathers and mothers spoke to our present predicament: "That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." The founders were not just declaring independence. They were declaring that there exist, for each of us, rights which no person can give or take. Equality, they were saying, is not a principle to be decided by states, or the federal government; it is not something that can be denied to a minority on the basis of majority rule. Equality is a principle that runs through the fabric of human existence. It lives within our very being, independent of and indifferent to the rule and laws of man.
That is why the courts are so important. The people must be the instruments of governance. But in government, the people are bound by the constitution; and the courts' role is to decide when the people have violated that boundary and when they have not.
The movement to legalize gay marriage is not about a right to marry. It is about something deeper: the freedom to exercise a right to equal treatment under the law.
Majority rule is part of the nature of democracies and republics such as ours (often referred to as a democratic republic). But our Constitution was ordained to, among other things, "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The question which we must ask in approaching gay marriage is: "Does its prohibition contribute to, or violate, these aims?" I maintain that the prohibition of gay marriage violates these aims, and violates further the spirit of the Constitution. Such a violation cannot be permitted in our Union even when the majority of the people will it to be. Subverting the equality and liberty of a minority is not the majority's right. Rather, it is a violation of the rights our founders understood each of us to be endowed with.
Argument 2: Homosexuality is Unnatural/A Choice
I hear often the argument that homosexuality is a choice, which is plainly absurd. Who would choose in our anti-gay culture to be gay? The choice argument is important to the survival of rightist intolerance because the difference between being gay and choosing to be gay is that if you choose to be gay, you're violating some moral code, you're acting immorally. Whereas if you are "naturally" gay, if it's just the way you've turned because of your genetics or your environment or a combination of the two, if it is not a choice, the idea of homosexuality as a moral issue is lost. Because if homosexuality is simply the natural state of ten percent of the population, then it wouldn't be a moral issue, and campaigning against homosexual rights would be like campaigning against the rights of other groups who shared characteristics they couldn't control - like, say, skin color.
I'm astounded by conservatives and religious rightists who talk about homosexuality as being unnatural. This is really not even a debate anymore. Somehow they've managed to keep the debate alive, much the same way that they - the religious rightists, the exact same people - have been allowed to keep the debate over evolution alive. We know homosexuality is natural because we've studied it and found it in wild animals and in all human populations. It expresses itself in around ten percent of a given human population. The only variance in that is the extent to which homosexuals are allowed to admit their homosexuality. So in Iran, for example, we don't have any real way to challenge the notion that homosexuality doesn't exist because if an Iranian admitted their homosexuality, they'd be promptly carted off and killed, tortured, or imprisoned for the rest of their life. What I find so astounding is that these people who say homosexuality is unnatural almost always say that it is also a choice. That is a very poorly thought out position.
Sexuality is of course a spectrum that stretches from the absolute heterosexual to the absolute homosexual. Most of us find ourselves in the middle somewhere. Every day in the fields of behavioral science and genetics, we're discovering more evidence that people are actually not solely a product of genetics or of environment, but a combination of the two. To illustrate, I was reading the other day that scientist have discovered that physical exercise can actually activate and deactivate certain genes controlling things like a genetic propensity toward cancer.
So when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice, I wonder if they really believe that gay people are just the same as straight people except for that choice. Because if we're all the same and gays are only different because they choose to be, then the corollary is that all straight people choose to be straight and could choose to be gay, and the only difference between the two groups is that straight people have taken the moral high road while gays have simply succumb to a universally human temptation. But there's a problem with that, isn't there? If homosexuality is a choice, then it suggests that we are all bisexuals deep down and that the homosexual urge exists naturally within each of us just as the heterosexual urge does. It's just a matter of choosing the right path. So homosexuality can plainly not be a choice and unnatural.
Argument 1: This country was founded on Christian principles...
Argument 1: This country was founded on Christian principles, since Christianity clearly outlaws homosexuality, the founding fathers must not have wanted gays to marry.
The appeal to the intent of the founding fathers is a common refrain for conservatives. It's a clever retreat too, because we can't possibly know what their intent was. It has the same esoteric aroma that characterizes theological arguments. These backward Rightists say, "Our country was founded on Christianity." But any real patriot who has read the founding documents of our country knows that the founding fathers were very careful to explain and emphasize that what they were writing were not religious documents. Rightists refer to the biblical principles in the constitution. I don't know what they're talking about, because I can't find any biblical references in the Constitution, the Bill or Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. The fathers used the word "God" a lot, but so does Alcoholics Anonymous, the The Torah, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. These are NOT Christian organizations. So this argument that somehow the Bible is infused into our founding documents is really only something that appeals to the ignorance of people who don't care to read the founding documents. I am not one of those people.
I want to spend a minute on this because I think it's important and I don't like the inattention that it gets in the body politic. The founding fathers were Christian, all of them. So it only follows that their construction of the country's founding documents have some similarities to the Christian morality, but I feel confident that these are purely incidental. The founders had the opportunity to legislate the ten commandments, but they chose not to, and if you think there wasn't a very strong and powerful lobby for legislating scripture, then you haven't read enough about American history. There were epic arguments over the inclusion of scripture and theological writings in the founding documents. It was a choice not to infuse our founding documents with religious writ, not an oversight.
But these right wing fanatics have been using this argument to suppress people and freedoms and knowledge for the past two and a half centuries. And somehow this argument is newly sharp each time it's resurrected. I don't understand. If you look at the important issues in our society - abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, climate change, the list goes on and on – you'll see a laundry list of things the founding fathers would have no concept of and on which their judgment would be utterly worthless. So you can't say to me that you know how the founding fathers would vote or act or that it would matter on issues that are entirely a product of technology, modernization, and globalization. I will say though that if you were to apply the inclinations of the founding fathers, President Washington in particular was very concerned about our country's involvement in foreign affairs, and yet we don't find any discussion of that in the religious right wing's deliberation over the War in Iraq.
And the most important point I want to make about this founding fathers business is that the values they infused into our country's founding documents are not specific to Christianity. You look at the language in those documents - unity, justice, tranquility, welfare, defense - these are human values that transcend culture, religion, even time, and religious rightists have no special right to lay claim to them.
I think the founding fathers would be more interested in securing domestic tranquility by encouraging dialogue and equality among groups like Muslims, Christians, homosexuals, and the many others. What the founding fathers were looking for was a system that preserved the most fundamental human rights while facilitating the change required to survive the ages, to perfect our union. They wanted to facilitate and encourage dialogue, and the way to do that is not to dehumanize others for things that don't affect you and for things which they cannot control.
Introduction - A Time to be Gay
It's no secret there has been an explosion in support for the anti-gay movement. In our generation, this will be our country's defining civil rights issue. Now is the time to be gay. Across the country we are seeing that kindness and passivity are not working for the gay rights movement. Our cause is as endangered now as it has been in recent history. Much of the bigotry and inequality comes from silence: silence at the dinner party where company is mixed and people are unfamiliar with the issue, silence when the opportunity arises to respond to a flippant comment from a rightist or a misguided Christian. I have collected a list of those flippant comments and crafted responses to them. With my first run of entries, I will present a collection of reasons the anti-gay movement just doesn't make sense. I have always been quiet and respectful toward people's opinions on homosexuality. But I have been wrong. My silence has contributed to the success of the anti-gay movement, and I will contribute not one more quiet moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
