|
||
The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder
I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.
A while back on my Twitter page (yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds), I mentioned that, if I believed in the devil, Pat Robertson might be him.
Being a fairly liberal-leaning guy with either liberal friends or Republican and Christian friends who don't believe that being one has anything to do with the other, I was surprised at how many people took offense to what I had to say.
These people weren't friends of Mr. Robertson but friends, apparently, of God. They had "spoken" with him and he had assured them that he was no friend of the gays. He also told them that he loved America more than any other country and was a huge fan of Dancing With the Stars.
The small controversy or "Twitter-versy" (patent on phrase pending) all started when I had made the mistake of asking why two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to make the same life-long commitment and (more importantly) under the same god, as straight people. Why can't my gay friends be as happily married as my wife and I? It seemed simple to me, but let me start off by telling you a series of things that I believe to be true:
I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don't think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you're attracted. That's why it's called an attraction and not a choice.
I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says "one nation under god" in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It's not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)
I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn't believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn't live their life according to the King James Bible isn't protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I've seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.
I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, "this god is not your god and he doesn't love you." There isn't one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn't be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I'm amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn't it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone's basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?
But this isn't a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I'm writing about basic civil rights. We've been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.
I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?
A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.
The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don't affect someone else's ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't like this distinctive "gay versus anti-gay" presentation of facts. It is always, either gay, or anti-gay brainwashing. Let me show what I mean.
"People born gay" is inaccurate. It must be, NOT ONLY what we are born with, but also some needed environment to trigger the thing. For example, cold and distant father, no emotional interchange in the family -- are quite common in gay childhood. And this fits in with the idea of what male homosexuality is based upon.
NO, we cannot control "WHAT moves us", yet we CAN avoid being ourselves controlled by such things.
Human happiness is NOT ONLY in fulfilling fleshly desires, it is also to become master of your nature. This is VERY difficult, but it even matters if you don't stop trying, before you become victorious.
"God no friend to gays" is meant to avert gays from God. God IS friend to everyone, who's interested in God and his principles, his council, his help. Nobody understands gays better, than God. It being so, God says, it is better for gays to fight it, just like other friends of God fight against ungodly tendencies in their bodies. But not all humans share such view of human life. A matter of choice.
One more thing.
Those who say "God is no friend to gays" must also not forget other groups, to whom God is "no friend".
He's "no friend" to alcohol/drug abusers, fornicators (sex out of marriage), thieves (do you pay your taxes?), violent ones, nationalists, greedy persons, selfish ones, all sorts of liars... Should I stop yet?
Well, before taking offense, let's ask: Who created who? Did WE created the world and life in it? Whose gift is our wonderful senses, our thinking and other capacities? Above all, our very ability to love? Did WE create it? When we , say, make love -- do WE make it?
So, it is quite logical to address the maker for instructions on the proper use, with our LASTING happiness in view.
And humans should stop trying to manipulate "God's words" to achieve their own selfish goals. God himself is forcing NOBODY into doing what the Bible says. Neither did he appoint any humans for that purpose. Just do it, or don't do it -- but then don't blame God for what you get in the end of it.
OMG - I'm such a huge Rob Thomas fan, I've listened to him since High School! He's so deep and insightful, just like in this new Soundcheck interview Walmart did. All you real Rob fans out there need peep http://soundcheck.walmart.com/rob-thomas to hear him talk about his new album called Cradlesong!
While I appreciate the words of support, Thomas can refer to us as Americans instead of simply "whites". It's amusing in this day and age when people try to be so sensitive to diversity that they continue to refer to people as a color. Imagine the fall out is he referred to support from blacks, yellows or reds.
Has anyone here (including Rob) ever read California family codes. Here's the section you all need to read, California Family Code section 297.5:
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
That's right folks CA law says rdp is the equal to marriage in every way but the name. So why all the fuss over one word? (I tried to post the law in it's entirety but it was too many words- feel free to go and look it up yourself so you can see the whole thing.)
Hmm...Interesting.
So since the gay community already has the rights...it doesn't matter what we call it b/c they have the same priviliges?
"So why all the fuss over one word?"
I would pose the same question right back...if it's just a word...why cant the gay community have it too?
Justin: EXACTLY.
Well good for you for reading the STATE laws of a civil union..now go read the federal laws for a civil union. There are over 1100 laws that a civil union does not offer to gays in a civil union...for example..at tax time, my gay husband and I have to file as MARRIED for the state tax, but are only allowed to file as SINGLE for federal taxes...resulting in gays paying more in federal taxes....THAT is just ONE of the 1100 laws we don't get in a civil union......
please before you ask what the big deal is....learn the facts.
Great if one plans to live in California in perpetuity........ And as mentioned, I am also a citizen of "THESE UNITED STATES" and there are at least 1100 inequalities afforded me by the federal government according the the GAO.
This is great... (unless you're really religious)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
There are two gigantic myths at the core of the whole movement toward same-sex marriage, and to see them clearly you have to think about the out-of-wedlock birth rate having risen from about about 4% to about 40% in four decades with disastrous consequences for the whole society. The first myth is that social and economic support, as reflected in marriage as an institution, doesn't matter. In reality, the removal of social sanctions is the main reason for the transformation in social customs and morals. The second myth is that gender doesn't matter with regard to child-rearing. In reality, the vast majority of criminals and other sociopaths didn't grown up with fathers, and the problem isn't just lack of an extra parent but the absence of the particular characteristics that most fathers bring to the child-rearing experience. If society takes a step toward active support toward situations where one or the other gender is missing from the child-rearing experience, it is giving an official approval that is a move in exactly the wrong direction from the kind of social support that is now urgently needed -- in fact more urgently than any measures to fix the economy.
According to your logic, two fathers should be better than one.
Congratulations, you're a supporter of gay marriage!
it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Also, relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations.
These so called "christians" could be using their money to help the poor. If there were such a person as Jesus, I am sure he would be appaled at what is being done in his name.
"Does any of that sound like these people were atheists? Of course not, it is just a silly narrative conjourned up by a bunch of people who despise religion."
No, it sounds like a bunch of *Deists* who said differently privately, but didn't want Fundies to spoil our chance at Liberty over semantics.
I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist"
To say the founders weren't Christians is indeed the truly revisionist narrative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that separates anything. The two involved clauses first preclude government from establishing a religion and second prevent it from stopping free exercise of it. Government is supposed to be keep from meddling in religion. Religion has no such restriction from diddling in goverrnment. Here are some sentiments from the founders.
Alexander Hamilton - "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
Thomas Jefferson - Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
James Madison - “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
George Washington - “ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
Does any of that sound like these people were atheists? Of course not, it is just a silly narrative conjourned up by a bunch of people who despise religion.
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.
-- George Washington
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson
"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson
"George Washington's conduct convinced most Americans that he was a good Christian, but those possessing first-hand knowledge of his religious convictions had reasons for doubt."
-- George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol
I 100% agree, in a time like this with wars and a huge recession, it is laughable that so many people are so focused on stopping gay marriage.
We're trying to fix the wrong problem. Marriage is a religious concept that we have granted legal considerations. That is wrong and needs to be fixed. We don't need to make "gay marriage" (an oxymoron) legal. We need to abolish the idea of legal marriage. Marriage has always had its origins in religion. Marriage has a definition. In every culture it is defined by the common religions. The definition, in all but the most modern "progressive" (or rare non-modern) religions, excludes gays. So, why don't we stop trying to redefine marriage? If we admit our mistake and universally implement an new legal term (union, yolk, bind, etc.) we can treat everyone equally under the law. Then any religious folk who stand up and oppose gays from entering into this commitment will undeniably expose themselves as bigots. As it stands today, you cannot conclude that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.
Actually you are TOTALLY wrong. Marriage started as a way to pass property along. In other words marriage started as civil unions. The "church" didn't get involved til sometime around 1000 or 1100 AD. Before that...yep...all were civil unions.. Even today all marriages are legally civil unions. Without that license from the government and a government approved official...you guessed it...you are not legally married. No matter how many religious figures pronounce you married...you aren't legally married without the license. And yes....you are a bigot if you oppose equal rights under the law for everyone based on their minority status. BTW...I am a lifelong heterosexual with a wife. I don't feel threatened at all by gay marriage...or the marriage of 2 bigots either for that matter.
There is also the fact that EVERY culture has created some kind of marriage in order to protect property, breeding rights and all that. If even ONE religion accepts gay marriage, we would be stepping on their freedom of religion.
Like it or not, Most of our founding fathers were christians, not atheist.
Facts are a good way to bolster your cred.
Just sayin'
Like it or not most of our founding fathers were deists....not christians. They didn't believe in revealed religion....no prophets...no Jesus. No man had a special line to god. They believed you learned about god through the study of nature and the study of the laws of nature. These were very wise men. You may be familiar with some of these non-christian deists: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, both Adams presidents, Ethan Allen. Actually our first 5 or 6 presidents were all deists...not christians. Only a very small percentage of people came to this country for religous purposes....most came for economic reasons...the land of opportunity. Probably 95% came to make a buck...it's that simple. And you are right ...facts are a good way to bolster your credibility....so bolster yours by getting some facts.
"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson
"Like it or not, Most of our founding fathers were christians, not atheist."
----
Don't forget, they owned slaves too.
Just sayin'
Rob misses the point, and conveniently throws out the religious red herring. There are plenty of us out there who oppose gay marriage NOT on religious grounds. I'm agnostic, my opposition to gay marriage is not based on the bible, but rather just a gut feeling of what should and shouldn't be promoted by society. Government has no right to tell people how to live their personal lives - if you want 3 live-in boyfriends, go crazy. BUT, government also has no OBLIGATION to sanction the marriage of two men or two women! Homosexuals have the same rights as me - they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, so drop the line about unequal rights.
Wrong....Government has the obligation to apply the law equally to all it's citizens. You can't have one section of our citizens favored over another section. You can't discriminate against women or blacks to make you feel better about yourself any more so now you are discriminating against gays. If it is legal for 2 moronic rednecks to get married, then it should be legal for EVERYONE to get married. And don't bring up that dumb argument about marrying your dog or horse. They are not citizens and therefore not coverd by the Constutution. Although I do find my dog to be smarter than most of the people arguing against equal rights.
"Homosexuals have the same rights as me - they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, so drop the line about unequal rights."
You do realize that this sort of "logic" was once used by racists to claim that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory, right?
And if marriage equality becomes reality, we'll STILL have exactly the same rights, except that you will now be able to marry someone of thew same gender.
but you don't really want to do that, do you? Forcing you to do it would not feel right to you, would it?
How's this for logic: think of every miserable marriage where a homosexual married a heterosexual, the broken families, the divorces, the whoe shebang.
and then...
let us marry each other so that we DON'T MARRY YOU!!!!!!!!
there's equality for oyu. that is adding to the sum of human happiness.
"Homosexuals have the same rights as me - they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender"
How would you like to be told you could ONLY marry someone of the same sex? Didn't think so.
Do you really think it's good for society to have government-sanctioned sham marriages of homosexuals to someone of the opposite gender?
When EX-president Bush used to refer to himself as a “Compassionate Conservative” I would just laugh, or cry, at the horrific oxymoron. A Progressive wouldn’t have the need to say a “Compassionate Conservative” any more than the ocean would need to call itself wet. It’s a given. Or at least I thought it was. I thought President Obama would be a truly magnanimous president, the president of all the people, whether from a "Red State, or a Blue one". A president who would understand and respect the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. So when I learned of the plight of Lt Col. Victor Fehrenbach, the F-15 fighter pilot that is an 18 year Air Force Veteran, being cashier out of the military because it was determined (after all this time) that he was gay, I just assumed that this couldn’t happen under this administration. Or who would have ever thought that West Point Graduate, linguist Lt. Dan Choi, Arabic fluent, would also be drummed out despite our desperate need for interpreters of Middle Eastern Languages. I thought surely that our president wouldn’t repeat the idiocy of the Bush administration in firing all the Arabic translators who were gay (the majority). We need these people. Our military, our country, and our sense of justice, we must not turn our backs on those individuals who are willing to put their lives on the line for our freedom.
This is the first time that I have ever said this on here... this article deserves a standing ovation!
I find it absolutely fascinating (in a "rubber-necking a car wreck" kind of way) that many of the most vocally negative on this subject have LESS problem with my being a bisexual, polygamous, pagan than they do with people who just *happen* to be something other than heterosexual getting married.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
