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.
I’m sorry, I didn’t really read through everything, my eyes hurt. But yeah I agree with you. I’m getting the following from an article I had read not long ago and it states that nowhere in the Bible was homosexuality denounced or frowned upon. Rest of the article:
Homosexuality is not a sin. If you go along with word-for-word what the Old Testament says, where it is briefly mentioned, then you are not allowed to eat shellfish because they are an abomination, it’s alright to sell your children to repay a debt, and you can take as many wives and concubines as you want.
The Old Testament is a history of a wrathful, hot tempered God who damned you for eating meat on a Friday. The New Testament is God mellowing down and sending part of himself down to earth to truly experience mankind from a human point of view, and seeing that even the worst of us can truly be sorry for what we’ve done. So he forgives us.
So back to homosexuality. It’s not a sin. The only time it was considered “sinful” was in the times of Sodom, where it was listed as one of many pastimes the residents indulged in. It by itself is not a sin. What I believe is that when God talks about homosexuality and Sodom, he mentions it because people are indulging in it (along with many other things) with no self-control. That’s what I believe the true sin was- indulging in your temptations without any disregard for your own morals and sense of right and wrong.
A lot of Christian denominations take the homosexuality thing and twist it because they fear it. It’s different from what they feel, so they claim it’s evil. Just like a lot of things- black people, retardation, mental disease (I’m not equating those things, so don’t get excited); these are all things that people in certain areas of the world were not used to normally, so they decided it was evil and tried to tuck it away or overpower it.
And that’s a sin.
omg i totally agree with the part where we are all born gay, but people may have attraction to a certain gender. like we are straight because we happen to be more attracted to the other gender.
i like your entries so full of soul.
im on twitter too add me!
As a Christian its amusing to me whenever I see certain people trying desperately to twist certain verses out of context to suit their prejudiced mindsets. These are the same sort of people who will argue vehemently for the infallibilty of the Bible, but who will toss key verses like “Love your neighbour as yourself” aside when those verses clash with their anti-gay worldviews.
Call me a heretic or an apostate, but I believe that an obscure verse in Romans written by Paul should not be more definitive of Christianity than Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Regardless of your faith, nationality or sexual orientation, we are all human beings with the inclination and the right to love.
I agree completely. It’s a weak argument, whether you’re religious or not. 🙂
Uhm. Honestly people have twisted the Christian view so much that even Christians themselves are confused. The reason why the church doesn’t support gay marriages is that fundamentally, life cannot be created naturally. People often overlook that marriage starts a family, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to get children that are genetical from both parents in a gay marriage. No matter how much you try to argue, sperm + sperm or egg + egg CANNOT produce a kid. Yes, there are always alternatives such as IVF/artificial insemination/surrogation/etc., but it’s still not biological. It is scientifically proven that a lack of female/male figure in a child’s life can potentially be detrimental, and it is selfish to want to legalize marriages and the possibility of having children, because it harms the child the most.
Having said that, in NO where in the bible that says that you cannot love someone of the same sex. God doesn’t forbid you to love just because you can’t marry the person. For example, I love my Dad but I don’t want to (neither am I allowed to) marry him. In a romantic sense of love, I can love my boyfriend but I don’t necessarily have to enter a marriage to prove my love to him. I CAN declare my commitment to someone without having to enter a marriage. I do realise there are other, much more complicated issues, such as my earlier point (then why is it legal for abusive parents to be allowed into marriage) as well as the latter point, but I think I will need more space then this comment box to go on.
Just for a disclaimer, I grew up in a lesbian school (HAHA, you know it wasn’t REALLY officially a lesbian school, just called that), I do have lesbain-like tendencies, and gay friends. I have gone for talks on the subject and heard from remarkable people, including gays, who have agreed with this point of view. You are not bound to this point of view, and similarly I respect that of all others. 🙂