In response to my Chick-Fil-A essay, I got a lot of letters kind of like this one.
“Thought I’d humbly give you some of my conservative Christian perspectives. My support of Chickfila [sic]…would have been based on the idea of supporting a…company with a founder who speaks for what seems to be the minority these days.
“In other words, I specifically feel BASHED by the general media and liberal establishment and gay activists for simply being a Bible-believing Christian. From TV shows, movies, mainstream news and music, so much is Intolerance of my conservative beliefs. I am labeled a HOMOPHOBIC and a HATER. Jumping to extreme language and extreme conclusions…serves only to stir up more irrationality around our disagreements.
“I neither fear nor hate homosexuals. I am trying to understand what it is to see life from your perspective. America is (was) a great place for liberty to speak our beliefs. It’s the dialogue that balances us and keeps one group from becoming a tyrant.
“I do not support the gay activist agenda which seeks to silence people like me.” – [Name Withheld]
The answer you must normally get from LGBT supporters like me—and it’s an answer that I normally give—is that trying to get our equality is not the same as trying to silence you. Tolerance is a two-way street and it doesn’t work if you’re passing laws that block one whole lane.
I said in my initial post that I don’t mind Cathy saying what he has to say. What I mind is him giving to harmful groups that contribute to inequality and to an atmosphere of violence against gays. This article should make that connection clear.
But I have a feeling that this answer won’t satisfy you. I must honor that you legitimately do feel like a silenced minority, and that you do feel persecuted by the mainstream of society. Your views have been called homophobic and hateful, and I believe you feel truly wounded by this.
You are not alone. Your letter expresses a sentiment I’ve read from many respondents over the past few days, and one shared by such notables as Bristol Palin, who said yesterday, while discussing whether she’d mind a gay dance partner on Dancing with the Stars:
“I like gays. I’m not a homophobic and I’m so sick of people saying that. Just because I’m for traditional marriage doesn’t really mean I’m scared or anything of anyone else, and I don’t hate anybody.”
Later, in a blog post, she continued:
“If I can’t dance with Mark [Ballas], I’d love to dance with a gay partner, a straight partner, or anything in between.
“But the media can’t seem to figure this out. In their simplistic minds, the fact that I’m a Christian, that I believe in God’s plan for marriage, means that I must hate gays and must hate to even be in their presence.”
Bristol Palin’s words seem to echo the sentiment you express. I’m going to address those feelings today, but it’s not going to be easy.
This is an emotional topic that’s difficult for anyone to face, and the loaded vocabulary that surrounds this issue makes things even worse. I have to admit I’m afraid of alienating you by even talking about it.
But I don’t think we can talk about what you’ve said here without recognizing something that’s fundamental to the issue yet so hard to see or explain. I’m a storyteller, so the easiest way for me to approach this is with a story. It’s the only way I know to address some of these things without resorting to words that hurt or offend, or shut down discussion.
Fast friends after “Net Equality.”
The Lion and the Mouse II: This Time, It’s Personal
Remember Aesop’s fable of the Lion and the mouse?
The Lion caught the Mouse, but the Mouse pleaded for his life, so the Lion let him go. Later, the grateful Mouse saved the Lion’s life by gnawing through a hunter’s net.
But the story didn’t end there.
After the incident that they jokingly called “Net Equality”, the Lion and the Mouse became fast friends.
The Lion enjoyed the Mouse’s antics, sense of humor, and crazy stories about his exciting life in the Jungle’s underbrush—a world the Lion could never really explore.
The Mouse enjoyed the Lion’s regal nature and comparatively calm existence, and it was fun telling his fellow mice that he was friends with the King of the Jungle.
Every eleven years, the time came around for the Kingdom’s Ball. And, as King, it was the Lion’s job to host it.
He invited everyone, even the animals that always ruined the party (the Rhinoceros always trampled up the floors, the Salmon drank like a fish, and the Kangaroo always slipped some of the good silver into her pouch)–everyone, that is, except the Mouse.
The Mouse was understandably confused. “Why am I not invited?” he asked the Lion.
“Mice are never invited to these things. It’s a rule,” explained the Lion.
“But you’re King of the Jungle. You can change the rules,” the Mouse replied.
“I can’t make an exception for you just because you’re my friend.”
“But you are making an exception of me. I’m the only one not invited!”
“Listen,” the Lion said. “Let’s just let this go. I’m not as popular a king as I used to be, and I need this to go well.”
“I want to know why I can’t come. Tell me! Tell me!”
“Because you disgust them!” roared the Lion.
“…Oh,” squeaked the Mouse.
The Lion’s demeanor softened. “Some of them. But you don’t disgust me. Listen, it’s just some dumb party. Why do you even want to go?
“It’s not just that I want to go; it’s that you don’t want me there. Why are you going if I can’t go?”
“Because I’m a lion and you are a mouse. I’m sorry, little friend. Good talk. I’ll see you after the party.”
And, with that, the Lion turned and walked away.
The story continues, but let’s stop and notice some things. The way I see it, in terms of power in this country, conservative Christians are the Lion; we LGBT folks are the Mouse.
I know you may not feel this way, but remember:
- It’s not illegal to be a conservative Christian in any state, never was, and never will be, thanks to the Constitution. Until a Supreme Court ruling 2003, gay sex was actually illegal in many states.
- Conservative Christians enjoy the full equality and protection of the law, including marriage and employment protections. You can’t be fired for being a Christian. I can be fired for being gay. Here’s a breakdown of the legal struggles that LGBT people face in every state.
- Conservative Christians may get “bashed” in the media. LGBT people get actually, literally bashed, sometimes to death. It’s an epidemic and it’s on the rise. Here are some hate crime statistics for you to peruse.
- Conservative Christians form a powerful, organized, well-funded voting bloc that has helped to keep marriage equality and other equal rights provisions off the table for LGBT people in many states.
As a person who identifies as both gay and Christian, I do understand that Christians can sometimes face social sanction. I will recognize that being a Christian isn’t always easy and that it hurts when municipalities level consequences at people who speak their minds. I certainly understand.
Did you know that Tennessee introduced a bill making it illegal even say the word “gay” in public schools? Yes. I understand.
But it’s important for you to recognize that there is a vast difference between facing ridicule or even occasional civic rejection, and facing systematic social and political inequality. There is a vast difference between being told you’re superstitious or old-fashioned and being told you’re an abomination that doesn’t deserve to live. There’s a vast difference between being told you’re acting hateful and being told God hates you.
I’ve been gay and Christian all my life. Trust me: Christian is easier. It’s not even close.
I’m the Mouse.
You’re the Lion.
So let’s continue:
The Mouse has three grievances with the Lion.
1. Despite his claim that the other animals are the ones with the problem, the Lion’s failure to act on behalf of his friend makes him functionally identical to the other animals.
Worse, the Lion fails to see or admit the basic power inequality in their friendship and, therefore, in their debate. The friendship and the debate allow the Lion to feel generous and open-minded without having to actually do anything.
2. The Lion ultimately has no rationale for excluding the Mouse other than tradition, visceral disgust, and appeal to his own fundamental difference from the mouse (“I am a lion and you are a mouse”).
3. The Lion is so blind to his own privilege that he can’t see why the Mouse even wants to attend. “It’s just a party,” says the Lion, “why do you even want to go?” But it’s not just the party but the fact of his having to vainly plea for inclusion that is so hurtful to the Mouse.
But what about the Lion? Does he have grievances? Surely he’s annoyed that the Mouse keeps asking to go where he’s not wanted. The Mouse is awfully prideful to try to get the Lion to change the rules just for him. And he put the Lion in the awkward position of having to explain to the Mouse that some animals find him icky.
But does the Lion hate the mouse? Is the Lion afraid of the mouse?
What I want to recognize here is that Bristol Palin is probably right, and so are you.
I don’t think you hate me. I certainly don’t think you’re afraid of me. Neither is Bristol Palin. She probably even has LGBT people she calls friends. She just disagrees with them about whether they should be invited to the party (the party, in this case, being marriage).
But here’s the problem: the basis of that disagreement is her belief that her relationships are intrinsically better than ours.
There’s a word for this type of statement: supremacist.
Wait, wait!
Bear with me here.
I know that the word “supremacist” makes you think of “White Supremacists,” which makes you think of the KKK and cross-burning and lynching. We think of supremacist as a Southern thing, a rural thing, a racial thing, a militia thing, a hate thing.
Here, maybe this will help:
I’ve had supremacist habits too.
I grew up in the rural South. I never hated African-Americans. I never knowingly said or did or voted in any way that hurt African-American people. I even had African-American friends. But I’d be lying to you if I didn’t admit that some white supremacy seeped into my thinking at a very young age.
This is a painful thing to admit. Even now, I find I can’t go into specifics, from sheer shame. Fortunately I have been able to break those habits, but it has taken a while.
Supremacy is the habit of believing or acting as if your life, your love, your culture, your self has more intrinsic worth than those of people who differ from you.
Supremacy can be about race, but it doesn’t have to be.
Supremacy and hate aren’t identical, but they often go together.
Some people turn supremacy into an over-arching philosophy. For most, it’s just a habit of mind. As a habit of mind, supremacist ideas can spring up in anyone. Being liberal doesn’t make you immune. Being gay doesn’t make you immune. Being a minority doesn’t make you immune.
You don’t have to hate people to feel innately superior to them. After all, what kind of threat are your inferiors to you? You may be annoyed by them, from time to time, or you may even like them. You can even have so much affection for them that you might call that affection love.
Because they don’t have to be said in anger, supremacist statements aren’t only the purview of the “God Hates Fags” crowd. The dangerous thing about a supremacist point of view is that it can accompany even warm affection.
Now understand: I’m not saying you’re a supremacist, but your letter, polite as it is, does betray a somewhat a supremacist point of view.
Your letter shows:
1) An sense of comfort with yourself as an appropriate judge of my choices, ideas, or behaviors. You think you have to see my point of view or agree with me in order to support my equality. The fact is, you can support my equality under the law even if you disagree with me completely.
2) An unwillingness to appreciate the inherent inequality in a debate where I have to ask you for equality. To you, even entertaining the idea of my equality is a gesture for which I should be grateful. To me, it’s an indignity that I even have to ask.
3) An unwillingness to acknowledge the stake that you have have in your feeling of superiority rather than blame it on God. To be fair, I’m really addressing Bristol Palin, right now, not you, since you didn’t talk about God or scripture in your letter. Rather than simply say “I prefer to think of myself as superior to gays”, Ms. Palin selectively employed her interpretation of Christian religious teachings to disguise her motivations.
For example, despite her claims, there simply is no Biblical basis for “god’s plan for marriage” as it exists today. Almost nothing about marriage today is Biblical. If you don’t believe me, take a look at this.
Truthfully, among all the condemning letters I received, no one even tried to make a coherent Biblical case for marriage as it is practiced today. No one tried because no one thought they had to.
Bristol Palin finds it self-evident that she’s better than me, and uses a vague appeal to “God’s plan” to strengthen that bias.
That’s hetero-supremacy. It’s the belief, unsupported by science or scripture, that heterosexual people are inherently better than LGBT people.
But don’t feel singled out.
Hetero-supremacy is all over the place. It’s all over the LGBT community. It’s all over TV, books, and magazines, even LGBT-centered ones. It affects what we find attractive and what we find repulsive. It affects how we behave toward people, how we feel about them, and how much we respect them.
And, of course, it’s all over the news:
- American Family Association spokesperson Bryan Fischer yesterday endorsed kidnapping children from their Gay or Lesbian parents, on the grounds that LGBT people are unfit parents. This has no basis in fact. Since no credible science supports his claim, his belief must come from his own feeling of innate superiority. That’s hetero-supremacy.
- The Chick-Fil-A COO’s statement that we’re arrogant to define marriage for ourselves was hetero-supremacist, since the heterosexual project of defining marriage for the last 5,000 years doesn’t seem to have bothered him much. Only LGBT people are excluded from the marriage-defining party.
The Kingdom’s Ball had been a smashing success so far.
The Peacock strutted about in his finery. The Moose let the Chimpanzees swing from his horns. The Elephant was just remarking that he would never forget the evening, when he suddenly leapt into the air, letting out a mighty trumpet, as a single tuxedoed Mouse strode confidently into the ballroom.
The party screeched to a halt. The Octopi stopped playing their instruments. The Bears stopped dancing. The Elephant hung quietly from the chandelier. Everyone watched silently as the Mouse walked up to the buffet table, crawled up the tablecloth, and plucked the choicest grape.
“I didn’t ruin it! I just…showed up.”
Enraged, the Lion leapt to confront the Mouse. ”Why did you ruin my party?” he demanded.
“I didn’t ruin it, I just…showed up.” The Mouse looked around at the transfixed partygoers. “And it’s a good thing, too! This place is dead!” The Mouse winked at the Lion, then popped the succulent grape into his mouth and let the juice run down his face.
“How could you do this to me?” roared the Lion, taking Mouse’s familiarity for insubordination. “You’ve ruined my party!”
“I have as much right to be here as anyone else,” replied the Mouse
“I have a right to decide who comes to my ball!”
“I thought it was the Kingdom’s Ball.”
“Yes, and I’m the King! The party’s mine! The castle’s mine! The kingdom is mine! Everything is mine!”
The Lion’s statement statement stunned the room into gasping.
The Lion plucked his friend from the table by his tail and stood holding him in the air. Then, with a flick of his paw, the King hurled the mouse out the window into the jungle underbrush.
Sensing the party was over, the animals filed out awkwardly, leaving the Lion alone.
Sensing the party was over, the animals filed out awkwardly, leaving the Lion alone.
Supremacy turns to hate when the feeling of innate superiority is openly challenged.
That outraged feeling you have of being oppressed or silenced just because pop culture doesn’t like you, and Rahm Emmanuel threatened to keep Chick-Fil-A out of Chicago? That’s the feeling a supremacist gets when her cultural superiority is being eroded.
Supremacy is why you and Bristol Palin have more outrage at your own inconvenience than at the legitimate oppression of others.
Supremacy is what causes you to believe that whatever status or privilege you enjoy is the will of God, so that the very act of fighting you politically is an ungodly act.
Supremacy is what allows you to think it only natural that your mere belief should be favored over my clear argument, or that your firmly-held opinion should be favored over my impassioned plea.
Like many habits, supremacy can be unconscious. Sometimes you don’t know you’re doing it until someone points it out.
And, when someone finally does point it out, it can be very tempting to hurl them out a window.
But don’t do that. You’d be hurling the wrong thing.
I’m 43 years old now, and I’ve had time to change my supremacist habits of mind. I did it by knowing more African-American people, by listening instead of talking, by humbling myself and not demanding that I must agree with everyone in order to support them, and, most importantly, by admitting that other people’s real lives were more important than my mere beliefs.
It should go without saying, but never does, that this is the essence of Jesus’s teaching. He taught that belief without compassion was corrupt, and that a teaching should be judged on the fruit that it bears—the amount of love it brings into the world.
If I’d picked up some “fact” from someone in a position of authority—a teacher, a relative, a preacher, a book—that promoted a supremacist habit of mind (and, believe me, there were plenty in both church and in school), I asked myself whether that bit of dogma increased or decreased the love in the world.
If it decreased the love in the world, that is what I picked up by the tail and threw out the window.
If there are things in your faith or philosophy that are holding together your supremacist stance on LGBT equality, it’s time to recognize that they they bear poison fruit.
You can still be Christian and support equality. Many do!
“[Being a] real Christian is not about accepting or condemning a person’s lifestyle, it’s not our job. It is about loving and accepting that person. We are all made in the image of God; why hate anything made in His image. I am so glad I read your article, Wayne. I live in the South, and the majority of folks are very homophobic. I may not totally agree with your choices, BUT I am happy you have someone in your life that loves you, and I pray that God keep you both safe from people who would want to do you harm.” – [Name Withheld]
Pick up that supremacist dogma and hurl it out the window. Let us stay at the party. Most of the other animals don’t seem to mind.
If you can’t, then maybe it’s time you heard the moral of our little fable:
Indulge thinking you’re better than someone and that habit will grow. Pretty soon, you’ll think you’re better than everyone, and people don’t put up with that forever.
- Wayne Self
Twitter: @owldolatrous
Facebook: facebook.com/owldolatrous
NOTE: If you send me feedback, you are agreeing that anything you send via email or Facebook may be quoted by me in future blog posts! I will withhold your name unless you indicate that you don’t mind it being used.
Illustrations by Joe Parrie.
Wayne Self is a playwright and composer whose current project is a musical tribute to the 32 LGBT and allied victims of the 1973 arson fire at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans, LA. Considered by many to be the largest hate crime against LGBT people in U.S. history, the fire is sometimes seen as a lesson in the perils of silence. ”Upstairs” will give voice to the victims of the fire–many of whom self-identified as Christian–and is scheduled to premier next year, in time for the 40th anniversary of the tragedy. For more information about the Upstairs fire, please visit http://tinyurl.com/8g6lr8j. For booking or production information, contact ewayneself@owldolatrous.com.
[...] has written one of the finest pieces I’ve ever read on the web about supremacy and social attitude. And it’s written in one [...]
Thank you!
That was a wonderful article! Thank you for making it so easy to understand.
Thank you. Lovely.
Is it “supremacist” for a progressive Christian to think that his or her beliefs are better than those of a conservative Christian?
If you believe that gays are wicked people who shouldn’t marry, that’s between you and God. If you act on that belief to restrict other people’s lives via civil law, that’s between you and everyone you affect.
Actually, that’s a poor analogy. The set of ideas one
finds more compelling has much to do with a host of factors including the inherent reasonableness of the argument and the ability of the offerer to support the argument with evidence and compelling arguments. Supremacist thinking begins with a presumption of superiority and seeks to rationalize such views and legitimize them through appeals to authority (e.g., G-d obviously shares my presumptions). One more point: while conservatives may feel poorly about being required to defend their views and share positions of power and status equally with progressives when the latter are in control, the reverse is never true. It’s easy to feel your position is self-evidently right when no other possibilities ever see the light of day.
Hey- you’re brilliant.
Yes! A composer and a playwright who can (and already has) changed the world.
That’s why we need the arts.
Thanks!
Jenna
Thank you, Wayne, for your continued wisdom on this topic.
When those who were promoters of Prop. 8 didn’t want their names or faces in the media during the trial, fearing unpleasant repercussions, I thought: “Now they know how gay people have felt in the past, fearing to be outed and/or ostracized or worse. What makes them think they deserve any more protection than those they oppose have had?” This is the way I feel about your writer’s sense of being “BASHED.” Does s/he not think that LGBT people have been “BASHED”–physically, as you so nicely point out?
As for “trying to understand what it is to see life from your perspective,” the writer only needs to substitute “liberal” for “conservative” and “(Bible-believing) Christian” for “gay” and vice versa, and s/he might get some idea of “your perspective.”
In addition to your link about Biblical marriage standards, I offer your writer this one, about rites for same-sex couples in the church hundreds of years ago:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142905/Civil-partnership-medieval-style-In-days-sex-marriage-Christian-rite.html
Things have not always been as they are now.
I am a 68-year-old straight woman–wife, and mother of (straight) sons, lest your writer think I have an axe to grind.
Keep up the good work.
Wow, this is a fabulous article. I love that you manage validate the feelings of your commenter AND to break down the underlying logic in a way that is easy to understand and that does not vilify him/her or Bristol. I wish more people thought about the processes behind their feelings and opinions in this way. I especially enjoyed your comments on supremacy.
I grew up Catholic and at 26 years old I still believe in a loving and empathetic God. I also firmly believe in the teachings of Jesus, namely to be kind to those around you and to let go of hate. It confuses me when I hear the more extremist Christians have such disdain for the LGBT community since Jesus was known to make friends with people from all walks of life, including those deemed unseemly by most. And he didn’t judge them.
I think we all deal with superiority in some form or another. I know I’ve had atheists belittle religion as a whole (I’ve actually had one of those people tell me I wasn’t a true Christian because I DIDN’T take the Bible literally but that if I did take the Bible literally then I was an idiot…) and I’ve seen gay people look down on some of my bi-sexual friends. But it’s our responsibility, especially as people who believe in the teaching of Christ, to become better people through tolerance and kindness even if we don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle. And honestly, it’s none of my business what a gay person wants to do with their life. Live and let live, for goodness sake.
Sorry. Rant over.
Actually, you can be fired for being Christian. Happens all the time.
In fact, I had a job in the 80s working for a Gay Jewish man, who in the interview noted my last name was German, and that I was married. He stated outright that he was Gay, and Jewish, and questioned if I was going to have problems with that, being a straight German.
I lasted less than a month before he fired me, claiming “my being a married Christian was upsetting his other gay customers. Obviously, I was damaging his business.”
So what am I? I am an Episcopalian. You know, the ones with the openly gay Bishop? The FIRST group to break from the Catholic Church over marital laws? The simple fact that you fail to address is that the descriptor “Christian” has become so overladen with undertones that simple mention of the word creates a knee jerk reaction. Even you use it dripping with a vitriol that sears the soul.
MOST of us couldn’t care less about your relationships. But this is no longer about you and your relationship. This is about them. It has ALWAYS been about them. It is about their following an authority blindly, and having the correctness of that authority put in question. If that authority is wrong about this, then how valid can the ultimate supremacy of that authority be? Ultimate Authority is NEVER wrong, or it can not be Ultimate Authority.
A truism to hold on to: Most people would rather fight believing they are possibly right than acknowledge the potential they MIGHT be wrong.
As Jesus said, Forgive them for they know not what they do.
To Scott: If you lost your job because you are Christian you have the opportunity to hire a lawyer and sue your former employer. You have recourse, In many states being fired because you are gay is legal. There is no recourse for them. It is not a matter of faith but a matter of law.
You were also hired to begin with while being openly Christian, and the decision to let you go was based not on your faith but on the work environment and the financial reality of the business. Perhaps he did have his own knee jerk reaction and the Christian identity has become tainted by the evangelical haters, but that was your opportunity to change that opinion.
It’s fine that you couldn’t care less about someone’s relationships, that is the least we can do in a civilized society. But standing up for the very real legal oppression that many face today isn’t a matter of faith either. Silence never helps the oppressed.
Because anecdotal accounts from 30 years ago totally trumps the fact that there is little to NO documentation of people being fired for being Christian, apart from the occasional obscure case… What happened to you is illegal, and to characterize it as something that can legally happen, and indeed “happens all the time” is pretty misleading… People getting fired for their sexual orientation, on the other hand? Well. We have a thing called “statistics” on those…
I love this!
I only take issue with the commenter who said “I may not totally agree with your choices…” – I’m straight, and I *DO* agree with the your choices, because they’re YOUR CHOICES, not mine! And I’ve no doubt you agree with MY choices, too, because that’s what acceptance and equality are about. You can choose things I might not, and vice versa. If we are at the same restaurant having dinner, and I order pizza, it doesn’t make your steak inferior, or “wrong”. It means we like different things, and we’re both right to do so.
Good comment =) Only addition I have, some of us are handed menus with only steak as a choice. We don’t pick it – It’s steak or stay hungry, or sometimes leave the restaurant because you’re being so hassled about it and can’t find the strength the stick around in the face of hatred. We don’t need any more teens or otherwise leaving the restaurant early because of others, hopefully someday everyone will make it until the final check comes of its own accord.
Yes, that was my ONLY pause in the entire piece too. I think it’s because I’ve heard it so often from people who try to avoid saying that my relationship is immoral but, when it really gets down to it, that’s exactly what they think. I try not to bring that baggage with me (i.e., throw it out the window), but it’s hard.
This is a wonderful, wonderful piece. It will get shared.
Thank you Wayne!!
I, too, take exception to the comment “I may not totally agree with your choices…” The reason is the word CHOICES. From my perspectives, that is like saying the mouse chooses to be a mouse, or a left-handed individual chooses not to be right-handed. For those in the LGBT community, the real choice is whether or not to be your authentic self.
Amen! I am a hetero sexual but I too believe in loving thy neighbor as myself. No but’s or unlesses. I didn’t a say I was perfect, but still trying!
Very insightful and such a big eye opener! I grew up Christian, riding the “church bus” and loved the feeling I used to get singing the old gospal songs and listening to the preacher. But as I got older I looked at how other “Christians” around me REALLY acted. It was, to me, disgusting that the people that were supposed to show the world a shining example of what a “Christian should be were lying, cheating on their wives/husbands, taking drugs, and stealing from the church. So how could these people tell me what God wants, or who God loves/hates? It seems to me that if God would “hate” anyone it would be the ones who say they are teaching his word and then acting like the laws of God and Man don’t apply to them. I lost faith in church leaders, and I guess in God too. Every gay person I’ve ever met has been more of an example of Love and Light than any “Christian” I ever grew up with.
And none of us “normals” have figured out how to make a marriage last. The divorce rate is HORRIBLE! So maybe gay people can show us how to make a relationship work? I’m not saying that the LBGT community has the answer for that, but “we” definately don’t. So who are we to tell anyone what to do with their own relationship?
Excellent response. My sentiment exactly! I too grew up in the church and have left in recent years because of disgust of other supposed Christians I see and hear, which makes my stomach turn. I consider myself spiritual but organized religion only has one purpose and that is to make money and ingrain certain beliefs into its followers.
I love this piece, and the Lion and Mouse analogy. One comment stands out,for,me, however…
“..I don’t agree with your *choices*….” (Emphasis added)
For me, therein lies the crux. There is a deeply held belief among the intolerant that gay people *choose* to be gay, and expect the rest of the world to conform to their “chosen” lifestyle. An analogous population to this would be vegans. The thinking is “you chose this lifestyle, to make life difficult on yourself so why should the rest of us deal with your choice? Why should we bend over backward to see that your meal is vegan, when you *chose* to * be* vegan?”
Until they can understand and believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the Lion will continue to keep the Mouse out the party.
Pam,
I agree that it’s not a choice and I’m not disagreeing with you, quite the contrary, but I’d like to add: So what if it is a choice? Adults should be able to choose how they want to live their lives. So many people rely on faith unless it’s something that they don’t agree with and then they want scientific data to back it up or it should be thrown out in court. I, on the other hand, think that whether it’s a natural part of that person’s life or whether they chose it, it’s still their right to enjoy all the freedoms that heterosexual people do.
Is not faith also merely an individual’s choice?
I wouldn’t say “merely.” It’s a Christian precept that faith is a gift of God. Like all of god’s gifts, the initiative is with God, the giver, not the individual person (or humankind in general), the receiver. One chooses to accept that gift, or not accept it. That’s part of why the church has always loved the Virgin Mary: that she accepted the gift of having been chosen to become the mother of Jesus.
But there is a strain in the Reformed tradition that states that those whom God chooses to give gifts are NOT able to reject those gifts. The technical expression for that is “irresistible grace.” That makes it all the more ironic that some Christians insist on the “choice” of being gay.
But more reasonable, in the sense of consistent: if one has no choice over natural aspects of one’s self (such as hair color), and if one has no choice over salvation (that is, God-given grace), then if one has no choice over homosexual orientation, that orientation must be either natural or God-given. It is unacceptable that gayness is natural, and most definitely unacceptable that it is a gift of God — so it *must* be chosen.
Not all Christians think this way. And I bet if you asked those who do think that way if they did, they would say they don’t. But I bet they do, at least some of them….
Thanks, Jacob – that’s how I feel, too. Engaging this on the grounds of whether or not it’s “natural” or a “choice” always feels to me a little like admitting that it needs to be justified in those terms. Granted, I do think couching it as a “Choice” is a little insulting because most of us don’t think of “choosing” who we fall in love with, so saying people “choose” to be gay is relegating their love to the level of a whimsical decision. I think defending homosexuality as not being a “choice” should be done for the sake of showing the strength of that love, not as a way to apologize for it.
That is perfect. “So what if it is a choice?” I want you at my parties.
“Until they can understand and believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the Lion will continue to keep the Mouse out the party.”
Not possible, really — in their worldview, it always will be a choice. Remember, a significant number of religious anti-gay advocates have long since acknowledged that same-sex attraction may be innate; so when they talk about “choice,” they’re not talking about the choice to experience same-sex attraction at all. They’re speaking about the choice to *act* on those attractions.
Essentially, many anti-gay activists aren’t averse to the idea that someone might be born with an attraction to the same sex. But they consider that similar to other “sinful” feelings that people experience and are called on to reject in order to live a Christian life — though for sociocultural reasons and bunk theology, they hold a far more intense rejection of same-sex attraction than many of those other things.
So how far do we go with trying to convince them it’s “not a choice?” I don’t think that’s the right approach, anymore. For years, a lot was invested in exploring and explaining the fact that there’s a biological component to sexual orientation. I totally get why that’s been important, but at the point we’re at now, I think it’s the wrong question. When we try to convince “them” that sexual orientation “isn’t a choice,” we’re allowing THEM to define the conversation, and then getting defensive about it.
Like Jacob said above, the real question is: “And if it is a choice… SO WHAT?” If someone wakes up tomorrow and says “Hey, I think I might try being gay for awhile,” does that fact in and of itself make hir partnerships, hir autonomy and hir right to equality and freedom from prejudice any less valid? Of course it doesn’t. The core issue is still all about autonomy and freedom from prejudice.
So instead of trying to push the “it’s not a choice” issue — which just goes to a push and pull — let’s instead reply with: “And if that is my choice for what to do with my life, and my body — how does it affect you and yours?” The most important thing isn’t that people all agree on Why People Are Gay — it’s that they come to understand that it’s not a threat to them and their communities if people are gay or not.
As a strategy for working toward acceptance, emphasizing “it’s not a choice” has worked pretty well. But it does have one drawback, IMO. It saves allies from having to say that being gay is just as good as being straight. If we see it as not a choice, we don’t have to take a moral stand. Makes me uneasy.
I spend a lot of time talking to people about this issue, and what I’ve found is that when they refer to ‘choice’, they’re not addressing orientation anymore, but instead the choice to act on it: ‘hate the sin, not the sinner’. Getting them to look deeper into it, and helping them realize that acting on orientation is not evil, and indeed, asking someone to repress that side of themselves, even if they are openly gay but celibate, is not only unfair, but inhumane. It builds on the idea of supremacy, but telling someone that does little for the cause. Telling someone that they are wrong doesn’t generally yield many results and neither does pointing out someone’s discrimination; people don’t generally cast themselves as the villain. Thus, in order to help someone evolve on this issue, we need to meet them where they are, wherever that may be, and understand their position, without judgment. Then, there is a chance for open and honest dialogue. The only way that someone is going to shift their opinion is if they want to, and the only way they will want to shift is if they see and recognize the hurt and pain that their position on the issue causes.
When talking about choice and sexual orientation with hetros, I find left-handedness as a non-threatening way to convey what it is like to be LGBT. For our generation, we would find it odd and inhumane to force someone to deny their left-handedness. Or, to acknowledge they are left-handed but not use their left hand for writing, throwing, and such. And yet, only a generation or two before us, individuals who were left-handed were considered to be possessed by the devil. Parents and teachers went to great lengths to force a left-handed child (e.g. the sinner) to use their right hand. Using the left hand was sinful. The emotional scars on these children were great as they were made to feel inferior to those who were right-handed.
My dream is that those in the dominant culture will come to see LGBT in much the same way as we now see left-handedness… as no big deal. To deprive left-handed people the right to marry would be ridiculous. To “love the sinner, but not the sin” is inexcusable when discussing basic human rights and needs for LGBT. In my opinion, that often quoted phrase is more appropriate for “love the adulterer, but not the adultery.”
I am impressed w/this article and the intelligent discussion. However, I really struggle with the word CHOICE and LIFESTYLE. Every time I read one of those words I felt a pain inside…
I am a 54 year old lesbian and have been out of the closet for 20 years now. I have met many people in this journey and have learned that there are SO MANY ways to be, to exist, to express one’s sexuality. In the world population of LGBTQ etc, there may be some who have chosen to express their sexual selves in alternate ways. But by far, the majority of us have not chosen to be non-hetero. I see no distinction in the thinly veiled explanation that nowadays, most mean we have chosen to act on our attraction. If you are heterosexual and you have sex, you have chosen to act on your attraction. Is that really different from being heterosexual. It’s like being a girl and “choosing” to become a woman. It’s a natural progression.
I resent (unfortunately, resent is the correct word for my feelings) people who think I have chosen to be treated as a second class citizen. That my mom (a Southern Baptist) had to listen to me explain how this came to the surface after I finally stopped drinking alcohol. That I voluntarily signed up to pay more taxes, more legal fees, and have less protections than any heterosexual. I would never choose to have my son bullied or ridiculed at school for having two mommies. I am afraid when he is old the bullying becomes physical harm. Why would I choose any of those things??? It is just who I am. I have made one choice that burns the heart of this little girl that wanted to be president of the United States: Under George W. Bush, I chose to refuse the fly the flag of my country who rejects me and my family. I look forward to the day when I can once again fly a flag from my home. But not until I am equal.
You hit the nail on the head Jerry. Basically in their belief it is making the choice to act on their orientation that makes homosexuals sinners. But they seem to forget that all sin is supposed to be punishable by death according to the Bible without the intervention of Christ.
When Christians start trying to regulate sins making them illegal then there becomes a problem as for the most part the ones they regulate are the ones they themselves do not indulge in.
I personally propose that if there is to be a government mandate on marriage it should include all types of marriage among consenting adults. All else is a violation of the separation of church and state.
This would even include polygamous marriages ie more than 2 people providing all parties consent. Bigamy would still exist as a crime if the person with two marriages basically kept the people s/he was married to in the dark about the other marriage. If not they would have the added person marry into their current marriage and thus stay withing the law. Keep in mind the polygamist marriage was biblical at least for the king…and some others.
Personally I think it arrogant to suppose your way is the only way to do things and all other ways are wrong. But then I also tend to find myself getting those supremacist ideas too sometimes. I once read something about how a western woman was looking at a Muslim woman thinking of how that woman was oppressed because she was “forced” to wear a veil while the other woman was feeling sorry for the western woman because the males of her family didn’t care enough to protect her honor….2 different views indeed.
I’m not afraid to let you know that was me
I wrote that to Wayne. I wasn’t referring to his choice or no choice to be gay. Just choices.
Sometimes we get mad at something or someone, right? You can’t help if something or someone makes you feel a certain way.
BUT you do choose how to react.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Dear Wayne,
Wow – what a thought provoking article. Your points about supremacy made me think about where I give voice to this in my own life. Often, being a liberal who was brought up on the thought that everyone is entitled to their own belief, one can feel a certain amount of superiority over those who seem to be so small minded and intolerant but that’s not very useful and must be cast aside too! I loved your article and will pass it around.
Oops. Just got tagged for my own supremacy. I will try to cast it aside.
Superb article. Thank you.
Excellent. My soul is applauding. I will pass this on and hope I can help spread your message. THANK YOU!
This is thoughtful, respectful, and superb writing. I applaud you for trying to make this disastrous ideological upheaval into a sound dialogue. While disgusted by hate shown from one side, I have also been troubled by hate shown from the side of those oppressed and in support of the oppressed. It is clearly not going to end in resolution if hate and anger are the tactics involved. A number of years ago, I was introduced to the uncomfortable idea of “white privilege” and though it made me uneasy and ashamed, the more I looked into this issue, the more I felt myself changing towards being a more humble individual – aware of the supremacy perpetuated by society and leas inclined to be in denial about it. Privilege is a difficult topic to conquer, because so many who are privileged are not aware of their seat. Thank you for being a part of the discourse that gives us a clearer view of what this truly means.
I love this comment, because it’s exactly a perspective I share. I have always been on the side of the homosexuals, never understanding the oppression and hatred. It’s always upset me to be lopped into the group of the intolerant because I’m heterosexual, Southern, and a Christian. However, after really assessing the struggles and oppressions of the gay population, the thought dawned on me also of the “white privilege”. I was always frustrated with that idea, because I grew up never noticing color and treating everyone around me as I would have them treat me, regardless of their color, religion, race, economic situation, sexuality, etc. I took that frustration to such a level that I was angered by the sentiment that blacks have been oppressed by whites and still are, because *I* never did it personally and I know that no one in my family did. But boy, did it wake me up. I understand that those who were born with darker skin HAVE experienced people around them treating them as second-class citizens, despite the way *I* have treated them. If you’re being oppressed by the same “type” of people over and over again, a wall will be constructed that will make you feel that anyone who looks or comes from the same place as those oppressors should be placed behind that wall.
So, people may lop me into a group that I don’t deserve to be lopped into, however, at least I get to prove myself as different to a population that generally will accept me as different once they get to know me. It doesn’t necessarily work the other way around and that is shameful.
This was the most beautifully written, heart-full, and intelligent essay I have read on this topic…and I’ve read a lot. Thank you so much for taking the time and for investing your own vulnerability into the piece.
Thank you for this. It’s lovely for once to read a calm, rational argument that doesn’t paint all Christians with the same extreme right homophobic brush.
Personally, I’d love to see marriage defined as between any consenting adults. (And yes, that includes poly arrangements, I’ve known a couple of families that made it work, and who am I to say they can’t love who they love???) It’s never really made sense to me that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, when there are so many other possibilities, and as long as everyone involved is satisfied with the arrangement, what’s the problem exactly? Hell, I’ll be the first to admit that if I hadn’t met my husband first, it’s entirely possible I might have ended up with a woman. We’re wondrous creatures, us girls!
I grew up in what looked from the outside like a very traditionally Christian home, but there was more than enough going on behind closed doors to put lie to a lot of the more egregious dogma. I still call myself a Christian, I still go to church on Sunday, read the Bible, and refer to God with masculine pronouns, but mostly because it’s what I can get my head around, rather than from any deep seated conviction that a male triune Godhead is the be all and end all of the Deity. I’m still going to teach my kids about Jesus and to follow his teachings, but it will include original language & culture research so that the context is established. The attitude toward homosexuality is only one of so many things touted by the extreme right as “God’s Plan” that simply fall apart when you dig into things like cultural context and the original language used.
But in the end, it comes down to one thing… the God I know, the God that has done so many things in my life, things that can’t be denied or explained away, that God is Love. It makes no sense whatsoever for Love to create a person, design their form and mind and soul, and then decree that some fundamental aspect of that person is sinful and must be eliminated. It’s just… incongruous with the love I have known all my life, and I’m far more comfortable with the idea that God is bigger than my notion of Him, than with any attempt by humans to define “God’s Plan”. You start putting words in God’s mouth… things get dicey awfully fast.
Bristol’s still only 21. At 21 I still had a few supremacist notions floating around in my head too. I’ve learned better since, and doubtless still have quite a ways to go. Cut the kid some slack, if she’s got any kind of functional intelligence in there, she’ll figure it out.
You weren’t able to voice those views to the entire nation.
Laura: “Personally, I’d love to see marriage defined as between any consenting adults.”
I couldn’t agree more. I believe anything that consenting adults do in private is their own business so long as nobody is harmed or coerced. Furthermore, “marriage” is a religious institution, and all unions should be civil contracts among consenting adults. However, since that ship has sailed, so to speak, I will settle for the fact that LEGAL marriages (those sanctioned by the state in order to determine various financial and other rights) should be allowed between any two or more consenting adults. Religious marriages are up to the various religions – if you don’t like what one religious institution dictates, don’t affiliate with them.
The problems occur when people place the value of their own religious beliefs above other people’s rights and very LIVES. Yet we have politicians…including our President…who continue to try to force the square peg of a traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage into the round hole of what sorts of relationships the government will recognize legally. Give it up already!
It should be added that I am a straight father of two straight children but the older I’ve gotten the more I have come to respect that there are lots of other equally valid ways to live a happy, loving, fulfilling life and people like me surely do not have a monopoly.
“Let us stay at the party. Most of the other animals don’t seem to mind.”
I’m going to edit this for you, because nobody holds the right to let or not let you enjoy the party:
“We’re here at the party. Most of the other animals don’t seem to mind.”
Thanks for this story… We need more stories today & we need to listen to each other’s story…one of my favorites was about the 2 tribes who went to war & they fought until there was only 1 person on each side left. It got dark & they agreed to halt the combat until the sun rose. They cooked a meal. They lay down & they talked. They talked about their lives in their village. They talked about their families. They talked about their children, the crops they grew & the songs they sang…when the sun rose – they both picked up their arms & bowed to each other & then went home….after finding common ground & that their ‘alikes’ were greater than their differences – they could no longer battle…We need stories that teach.
I don’t know if this updating of the Lion & the Mouse will make any headway against “man shall not lie with a man….” but let’s hope that it can begin to foster a dialog with the other side about how people perceive themselves & others. I would really like in my lifetime (& I have been here 63 years) to see same sex marriage become a reality.
May you & yours know peace & thanks for the story – it was wonderful.
Fantastic essay/explanation. Helps me tremendously. I’ve struggled for years trying to understand why my twin sister’s religious beliefs and attitudes hurt me as they do. As a new Christian, she once told me how upset she was that I wouldn’t be with her in Heaven…. and it has hurt me for years. As she has matured in her faith, she no longer says such horrible things – but that doesn’t mean she does not believe them still.
Even though I don’t believe in Hell or Heaven as actual places, this is still a hurtful thing, and every once in awhile I have to pick that sore, as it was… only to find that yes, she still believes that – which means she is still making judgments about me. She denies this vehemently, and says that it is God’s judgment, not hers (?), and that there is only “one way up the mountain….”
What you said about people that love the person they are feeling superior to captures this perfectly, and I thank you. Supremacy is a good word for it…. the best I could come up with up to now is arrogance. I love and respect my sister very much, and disagree with her completely on almost everything spiritual and political… she gets highly offended if I criticize the Tea Party, because some of her friends are members… but cannot understand why I get offended and sad by some of the things that she says.
I could go on… and may later – but thanks again for helping me to better understand what has been hurting me for years… it helps a lot.
LK
Your sister out of free choice decided to go to a heaven you won’t and can’t go to. when someone leaves theır loved ones behind to my mınd that is self centered selfishness. if some chooses to exclude you, they can’t blame the dogma for it. it is their free choice to believe all that about you.
in general very well stated.
i think, mostly, that if many of the Xtian groups felt secure that their religion wouldn’t have to include things they do not agree with they might calm down,
but every single incident where a church got sued for not allowing the gay couple to be married IN the church instead of on the public grounds…
or the gay activists making a scene in the church…
gets a LOT of airtime. i mean a LOT… as a Xtian you hear about this over and over, which gives the idea that it is VERY common….
and leads directly to the “will i have to compromise my religious beliefs if gay marriage is legal”
now i am of the opinion that the best solution all around is to have ALL marriages divided into “civil” (any citizen, of any gender, because that’s civil law) or “domestic partnerships” (including my legal het marriage)
and “religious” which has NO bearing on anything in civil law (why should my religious marriage affect my taxes anyway)
with the firm understanding that NO church has to recognize any civil marriage. ever.
personally i think that may be the only way to really settle this fairly for everyone. it protects the religious beliefs of our citizens (including their right to be biased, or jerks, or whatever) while protecting our civil rights.
oh, and a small point… depending on your definition of “conservative Christian” you may be quite wrong about the history.. but as i said it depend on who you include in that group….
Catholics have faced serious legal persecution in the united states, for instance.. as have 7th day Adventists and many others. if you include those two alone you canot say that they have “never faced” legal discrimination or abuse.
if you ONLY include mainstream protestants, then you are correct
but a minor point.
Actually, all legal marriages in the US are *already* civil marriages. That such unions are often also blessed by clergy doesn’t change that fact.
The religious rite of Holy Matrimony is and always has been something separate from the legal rights conferred by a signed marriage license. The government cannot tell the church who they can and cannot perform rites for. Therefore the church shouldn’t be able to tell the government who they can and cannot allow to enter into legal contracts.
but it does. Right now, there are plenty of churches that perform gay marriages, but the “conservative Christians” who are anti-same-sex marriage are telling the government it has to adhere to their religion and ignore mine. That’s unconstitutional. And if I had enough money, I’d try to get it up to the Supreme Court.
It’s backwards: the law is narrowly “Christian” and the churches vary all over the place — my church performed its first same-sex marriage ceremony in 1956.
I agree 100% Tal. The problem is that the word “marriage” is used for both institutions. So while your point and Kirsten’s are correct, IMHO, how do you un-ring the bell? Put another way, how do you resolve the semantic argument that occurs because the word marriage describes BOTH the civil and religious institutions?
It seems we have two just choices:
1. You either declare that all state-sanctioned marriages are officially converted to civil unions (the IRS form 1040 could say, “Civilly Joined Persons Filing Jointly”, for example), and then recognize non-hetero unions among consenting adults as well.
2. You recognize that already married persons will reject #1 so you instead give legal marriage status to other unions among consenting adults as well.
The problem is that people with supremacist views, as Wayne describes them, don’t want #1 because it would require them to “downgrade” their super-awesome special marriages that are good both religiously and civilly. But they won’t allow for #2 since that would somehow impact their religious definitions of marriage.
So “they” create an unacceptable third option – keep LGBT people and others perpetually in a second class status. And they don’t see a problem with it! Unbelievable…
The word marriage is common in the restaurant industry also. It means to combine the contents of two used bottles of ketchup or shakers of salt…you name it. No one asks. Is this bottle male or female… or. Can this union bear fruit….or are they the same brand….but its called marriage…a rose by any other name comes to mind
The solution is for the state(s) to simply no longer recognize Religious Unions as a proxy for Marriage.
That is, you go to your clergy for your Religious Union but if you want to get Married you 1) go to the state to get the proper documents [no change there], 2) you and your witnesses go see a judge. Clergy are simply no longer allowed to act as Marriage officiants.
To be nice, we could grandfather all those Religious Unions that were allowed be be Marriage proxies.
What serious legal issues? Prosecuting rapists amongst the priests isn’t “persecution”. I’d completely disagree that the Catholics are “persecuted” in America. The Catholic Church is strong in the US, and does far more persecuting than being persecuted, with ridiculous leeway given in instance after instance due to their sway.
As for the rest of your argument, read the main article again and ask yourself if 7DAs or any other Christian faction is discriminated against in the way the LGBT community is. The answer: No.
I’ve never heard of a single church in the US being sued for not allowing a gay marriage to take place within thier structure. I’ve heard some of the Christian Fundementalists threaten that this would be the eventually, but where and when has it actually happened? Please provide a reference.
Both of your articles are incredibly well written. You are so articulate in what you have written. I envy your ability to write so beautifully. I feel sad, however, that most of the persons with the negative feelings toward the LGBT community are so locked into their beliefs that they won’t get it. If you are able to reach a few though, that will be a plus.
widely distribute! PLEASE. Beautiful!
I would love to see this published on the cover of every newspaper in our country. Unfortunately I only have the power to share on Facebook. You are so unbelievably well spoken, without raging emotion and with love and kindness at the center of your message. Well done, Wayne, thank you for writing and sharing and hopefully opening a few more hearts and minds.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Excellent article!!
Excellent quote to post here.
I’m still shaking my head at Bristol’s assertion that she’s for traditional marriage: You know, where a teenager has a child out of wedlock then proceeds to star in a series of “reality” TV shows.
[...] Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin Share this:TwitterFacebookRedditStumbleUponDiggTumblrPinterestLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
For about 2000 years “christians” have sought to destroy my people…wipe us from the face of the earth…our continued existence frustrates them something awful. It is in the “christian” mindset in this sorry country that they are superior and everyone else is dirt. When people with double-digit IQs get something in their heads, it is impossible to dislodge. Yes, people, you read that right. Most southern evangelical christians are too stupid to understand anything else. If you believe things without questioning or understanding you are on the same intellectual level as any unfortunate feeble-minded person. Like any garden-variety republican, T-par-T (the dumbest) buffoon or evangelical other-hating amurrican “christian”, you function to satisfy urges rather than participate in human life as a sentient being. And the republicans have cornered the market on these types. My solution would be to finally acknowledge the chasm and separate into two countries. They can god and hate themselves to death and we can have clean water, clean air, health care for all, equitable distribution of wealth, mutual respect and compassion, education for all, effective public transportation and becoming a respected partner in the gl0bal community of nations, not a laughingstock as the republicans have made us. Just keep voting for these criminals, you dimwitted, clueless, sorry fools. So, “christians”, best you go and beg forgiveness from the god you alienated millennia ago. I know you would be more comfortable burning more of us at the stake, but it ain’t gonna happen, because this time you would have to take all of us and boy would we bloody you badly in that fight. Go on, christians, continue to heap praise on yourselves for how wonderful you are . Go on hating, and go on patting yourselves on the back every Sunday in church while you tell yourselves how perfect you are. And then go hate some more blacks, Asians, Jews, LGBT people and native americans. It’s in your nature now. Why bother with you any more? Just go to hell.
I loved this piece! For two reasons: 1)it’s a beautiful commentary 2)it’s both exactly how I feel about the gay rights issue as well as how I feel about race issues. As an African American woman, I deal with people on a daily basis you believe that their perceived right to be prejudiced and/or get advantages that others don’t have is being threatened and therefore it’s “reverse racism” and they’re allegedly oppressed. They did a survey on this and a substantial amount of people really think that their “white rights” are being violated. It sounds absolutely identical to the anti-gay rights people. They believe that they have the right to allowances that gays don’t have and saying otherwise is oppressing them. It’s really ridiculous.
I got tears in my eyes reading this. So eloquent and thoughtful. Thank you for putting into words what I have struggled so long to express myself!
I saw this post on a friend’s facebook page and I am in awe of your writing! This seems to hit the nail on the head; you have successfully verbalized everything I’ve been thinking in the past few months and made it much more eloquent! I will be subscribing to your blog now for sure! (And, no doubt, wasting the rest of today reading old posts).
One other thing, as I start to peruse your blog I am struck by your strong faith. Do you or any other readers have suggestions for a good church that is more accepting of the LGBT community?
Thank you again, and I look forward to future posts!
Curiously, are you fighting for your equal rights, or the right to the word, or both. I can agree with the fight for equal rights and having your partnership/union/marriage recognized by the state/country/world and being offered the same rights in a LGBT as a Heto one. But in every negotiation, there must be a middle ground where people meet. I agree with Kirsten about having everything being split. I see as of right now in our time, the only way for you to have the equal rights under the law in the institution of “marriage” is to call it something else, and give it all of the same rights.
I understand that the supremacy still exists, but you still have your rights… all of them, except the one to call it “Marriage” and call your spouse anything but a “Partner”. Now tell me, since you like to use such brilliant examples, is it not enough to have the rights and not the word. Lets say, there are two pieces of fruit. Identical in nutrition and taste but differ in looks. Both of which will benefit you in exactly the same way. You get one, and the rest of the world gets the other. Would you be happy with that? I would suspect not. Is it fair? No. Is it supremacy? Yes. But it is my belief that a fight for equality on THIS level is borne out of Curiosity and Jealousy. First you are curious of what you haven’t experienced. Then you are Jealous because you can’t have it. And then you get angry. You think about stealing one, but you don’t want to keep having to steal them. So then you decide to fight for it. You shed blood for your right to have it. and then you get it. And you find out it tastes just like the other. It has the same joys and the same misery; the same comforts and the same pains. Do you really think equality on THAT level is worth it?
In any case, I personally don’t even agree with the institution of marriage as it stands today anyways. It is no longer, “until death do us part”; but more so like, “until i get tired of you”. where you treat spouses like you treat cars. when one breaks down, instead of fixing it, you buy another. We’ve come from a Quality built sustainable society to a throw away capitalist mentality. If you want a life partner and want to commit to each other, that’s fine with me. You deserve to have equal rights and equal protection.
But to fight over the semantics with the word Marriage I feel is petty at best. So as to dismiss the air of supremacy, I honestly don’t care one bit what it’s called. I don’t even care if you get have the word. to me, it is a WORD, something that was concocted to describe something in the world. You can have it, I don’t care. But, One could easily be called Three, that doesn’t change the meaning, only the title. It is just a word and a symbol to describe something. 3,2,1,4,5:1,2,3,4,5. as long as they carry the same meaning and definition, the worth and purpose of the word or symbol stays the same. Please don’t fight tooth and nail to get it called Marriage if you can be granted something with equal rights and protections. To me, Marriage is just a word. Something to describe a state of being. To others, it is a sacred pact. and those others far outnumber you or I. tell me, can you not be happy with a synonym for now? Because, that fight will take time; lots of time. You need to win it at a state level, then a national, and then a global. As well as the right to do have it in a Church. That fight is one of change, and true change on that scale does not occur overnight, not even next year. You are not dealing with some THING, you are dealing with the psychological and sociological institutions of the mind in the “old regime” which is in power today, and they will die off and a new one will take its place, maybe still with some of the same views, but more open. and then that will cycle as well. The young will replace the old in power, with more increasingly progressive ideas. It is Inevitable.
I am a Heto male, raised Catholic and am currently Agnostic”ish”. I have GLBT friends, and don’t mind them having equal civil rights. but I do disagree with GLBT myself, not the marriage, but the lifestyle choice. And I do believe that 90% of GLBT are the way they are by choice rather than genetics. I had some experiences just before I was entering puberty. I chose not to go that route, it just didn’t interest me.
I do not disagree with the GLBT lifestyle choice a Moral or Religious point; I disagree with GLBT on a Biological and Sociological point.
The Biological note being that GLBT can not, to my knowledge, have children solely using their own DNA with today’s technology. This is not the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” argument. They don’t contribute to the Gene pool. Coupled with the fact that Heto couples are having increasingly less offspring. Going from 6-12 children to 1-3, some not being able to have children and others choosing to never have them. There is a thinning of the gene pool and due to that, the human race opens itself up to more biological threats.
Sociologically speaking, to me it has become a fad is many cases. I don’t believe people were born to be GLBT, Genetically speaking, i believe only 5%-10% are affected. The rest are socially and psychologically conditioned, having it develop from ones environment and experiences. Having radical GLBT parents and only being exposed to GLBT, that is social conditioning. By people thinking that it’s cool, or choosing it to be different is a fad. It can develop from abuse by the opposite sex as psychological trauma or a break. In most cases it is a choice. Like mine was to be Heto and not GLBT, This is my belief.
Awkward Bisexual Alert
As a life long Progressive this pc truly connected with me at a level I had never considered before. Thank you for your insights and thoughts.
Loved this article. Whenever I bring this up with my Southern Baptist family and friends, however, what I hear is, in essence, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. Which is sad, because it’s almost as if they’re able to hold two completely contradictory thoughts and believe in them both equally.
Religion is such a personal thing. And different religions rarely agree on things. This is why we have freedom of religion here. And It’s great to have differing opinions and even share those opinions openly. I mean discussing topics like this is how we grow, and that’s the point of free speech.
What is wrong, is forcing those beliefs on someone else. This may be a bad example, because I’m really not trying to make a comparison between gay people and bacon. But the point is the same. If you’re Jewish and you believe for religious reasons that you should not eat pork, that’s great. You can even tell people that you believe that God does not want us to eat pork. But does that mean that you should try to make civil laws preventing the entire country from eating pork? I love my bacon, so please don’t =)
So, if you think pork is a forbidden food, awesome, just don’t eat it. But understand that not everyone feels that way, and you can’t really force them to bend to your will. And them eating bacon doesn’t affect your rights, you still have the right to believe it’s wrong and refrain from pork yourself.
Joe, to be talking about what brings the most love into being, though, we need a better standard than rights. The religious in the first century A.D. were having just the problem you discuss, for instance. Some Messianic Jews were eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols because it didn’t matter, after all, while others equally devout were zealous about the holiness of the thing and they were aghast.
Leaders had to step up to the issue and they said that as a matter of Jesus love, there was a right answer in the situation. Those who weren’t scandalized about the meat were perfectly free to eat it as they did AND should not trip up those whose faith was less strong than theirs. They might believe that the beef was pointless and that they’re acting in love toward their fellows to try to get them not-hung-up-on-it: but even so, the *most* loving thing was to defer, even bend over backward, if necessary, to the sensibilities of those who had less free lifestyles.
it is much worse than that. they say pork is forbidden and pigs must be punished for it. burnt alive. in hell. that is their choice to believe it or not. and when they deny me marriage, a job, safety in school, jail me, bully me or stone me to death, they choose that belief. it is a free choice. no pope is holding a gun against their head. they choose to be just that kind of “christian” or Nazi, or KKK, or Shinto emperor worshipper and Tojo follower and no WWII Japanese general is there at their Inquisition with flame throwers at their heads. They choose to believe and that is hate. Or worse, they don’t care.
I appreciate what you are trying to say about supremacists, but I think invoking the negative connotations of that word for so wide a purpose is unfair. We all hold beliefs we believe to be superior to other beliefs. We all want majority rule to work for us, but not against us. This is the ugly issue we refuse to face. As long as marriage is a creature of statute, ultimately one group will succeed in voting their beliefs on the other; one group will oppress the other’s freedom to act. Both sides will try to justify imposing their will on the other group through rationalization, but ultimately, these rationalizations will be a poor explanation for the loser. As long as we fail to recognize this aspect of democracy, we will only aggravate the antagonism between individuals of competing belief systems. To coexist, we have to recognize how our beliefs chafe one another. Supremacy is not just believing you are right and others are wrong; Supremacy is finding excuses to dismiss the beliefs of others merely because they are inconvenient or adverse to your own.
Absolutely wonderfully stated. I’m amazed at how my own privilege has clouded my views so many times. It can be easier to see once you choose to step away from it, but the initial willingness to look can be hard to muster.
Thank you for this fantastic piece.
Homosexuality is a sin = sinners shouldn’t be allowed to get married. That’s just not God’s design.
HOLD THE PRESSES, YOU GUYS, all us married folks just broke the Bible. I HATE IT when that happens.
Brilliant!! Simply brilliant.
You’ve laid this out all out so perfectly. Seriously one of the best things I have ever read.
So….. was the mouse okay in the end??
Eh. You know. Can’t complain.
The mouse reached the level of self-actualization and therefore the Kingdom of Heaven. The lion still had more to learn and came back as a mouse.
I love the idea of the Lion coming back as a Mouse! And I’m wondering if the Lion lost some of his legitimacy as King, after throwing his friend out the window. The other animals weren’t happy with that and realized it could happen to them as well. The next day the Lion missed the Mouse and understood the stupidity and pridefulness he had shown at the party. He told the Mouse he had been wrong, but things just weren’t the same after that. Sadly, the Lion’s hateful behavior made things worse for the whole society of the forest in some ways. But the Mouse’s example of courage (and self-actualization) also had a positive effect, and other animals expressed themselves more freely and with more respect for each other.
In the earliest days of Christianity, all marriages were civil contracts and the best the Church could do was to bless a particular union. The separation of church and state decreed by our founding fathers makes this a reasonable position under the Constitution.
I suspect the founding fathers would find civil unions easier to understand than the voter apathy with which we have been confronted in recent elections- democracy was not designed to be a spectator sport!
This whole piece is eloquently and beautifully expressed. Thank you.
What particularly stood out for me was this:
“If I’d picked up some “fact” from someone in a position of authority—a teacher, a relative, a preacher, a book—that promoted a supremacist habit of mind… I asked myself whether that bit of dogma increased or decreased the love in the world.
If it decreased the love in the world, that is what I picked up by the tail and threw out the window.”
That is the perfect question to ask. It really speaks to me today, so thanks for being the messenger that it came through.
Paul the Spud linked your piece over at Shakesville.
Wanted to drop a line, saying how effing brilliant this piece is. Thank you for putting it so clearly.
They say they don’t mean it personally. We don’t “hate” you.
it is very simple. the “christian” belief that i am less than human [or for that any dogma muslim buddhist or whatever] is nothing but a form of hate. if you choose to believe that gay people are inferior to you, that belief is your choice so take responsible for your choices. don’t blame god or the pope. if you “believe” than don’t give me the “don’t take it pertsonal” or the “just saying” crap. when you choose to hurt the people i love, damn it, you are hurting humans.
It is your choice so it does not matter whether you call it love hate or a kangaroo.
Exactly! Thank you!!
it is part and parcel of the 30 some odd years tradition of explaining away and justifying self centered selfishness and denial of responsibility. How dare they say they have to believe this or that about me because the pope or whatever tells the to. No difference whatsoever than choosing to be a Nazi or choosing to follow Tojo’s orders and kill babies. There were a lot of very nice Nazis. Bristol may or may not be nice but she is lying. And just as guilty of atrocity as any Inquisition but without the courage to be honest about it.
They consciously choose to believe truly horrible things with truly horrible consequences in the lives of real people, so saying they don’t hate us is even worse: they don’t care.
There is no one with a gun against their heads making them “believe.” It is disgusting. Makes me puke.
There is one main problem with your article, which I feel (unfortunately) invalidates large parts of it. You are ignoring the Belief of many Christians that God is real, and all powerful, and laid out his message to us in the Bible.
You say that the Lion doesn’t let the mouse in to the party because it is ‘his’ party, and it is just an old rule. That’s not the whole story. The Lion believes that the ‘Spirit of the Mountain’ (or whatever else you would like to use for this story) will come down, and squash both the lion, and the mouse, if the mouse is let into the party. The mouse of course thinks this is stupid, and that the lion is just using the story of the Spirit of the Mountain to get his own way. How can the Lion explain he is doing this to the mouse, for both of their own good?
The allegory attempts to show the relative relationships of the Lion and the Mouse to CIVIL law, as we are discussing the CIVIL institute of marriage.
All allegories fall apart at some point, and this allegory wasn’t written to discuss the relative relationships of the Lion and the Mouse to GODS law. If it were, they would not, I assure you, be Lion and Mouse. They’d be equal.
Thanks! Although “Christians” conveniently skip over the fact that God loves all his creatures equally, and they zero in on that “stewardship over the beasts of the field, fowl of the air” crap. That’s how they justify their false sense of supremacy.
Speaking as a non-Christian… I think you just summarized everything that’s good about Christianity, right there at the end of the second paragraph. Not just with those words, but with the fact that you chose to respond with those words, instead of all the myriad ways you could justifiably have responded.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it God’s job to mete out punishment to those who don’t follow His rules?
“Faith” that is coerced with the threat of earthly consequences delivered by other humans is not genuine faith. In forcing people to adhere to religious law, you’re denying them the opportunity to choose that faith of their own free will.
Even Jesus himself said that those who are called will come. There’s no need to drag them along, kicking and screaming. A call to spread the gospel is a call to inform, not coerce. Your job is to win converts by telling them the good news, not punish people who refuse to hear the message.
You worry that God will smite us if we allow gay marriage (or you personally vote in favor of civil equality for your fellow brothers and sisters), but I bet you don’t have the same worry when it comes to the U.S. going to war in Iraq, the U.S. ignoring hunger and strife in Africa, or the U.S. cutting spending to social welfare programs that help the nation’s poor. The cognitive dissonance in your beliefs belies your deeply held supremacy. I ardently hope and pray that one day you will realize that (1) God does not hate gay people or want them to suffer–he loves them with all of his heart, just as he loves you; and (2) gay people should not have to disabuse you of any of your religious beliefs in order to gain civil equality. We should not have to kiss your ring in order to be treated as equal citizens in this country. We have done nothing wrong. Nothing. I’m so sorry that you have been taught being gay is wrong. It’s not. Please open your mind to that possibility. Even if you don’t, please understand that it doesn’t matter in the context of our civil rights.
there is one main problem with your comment, which i feel (unfortunately) invalidates large parts of it: you are ignoring the fact that just because some people **think/believe** god is real, that makes it true.
maybe i worship satan and **think/believe** that i must sacrifice babies to appease him – pretty sure that wouldn’t go down so well with the families of those babies.
there is one main problem with your comment, which i feel (unfortunately) invalidates large parts of it: you are ignoring the fact that just because some people **think/believe** god is real, that makes it true.
maybe i worship satan and **think/believe** that i must sacrifice babies to appease him – pretty sure that wouldn’t go down so well with the families of those babies.
Because, while devout Christian may BELIEVE that God is going to punish all of us for sin, we live in a nation of laws. The devout may also feel that non-Christians (Mormons, Muslims, Jews, etc.)are going to be punished for a lack of faith, but we do not make their religions illegal.
A) Your rationale is based on sinful nature and excluding someone’s rights for their own good.
B) This same rationale would have to be used for anything of a sinful nature, that someone chooses to do.
Morally and legally, the religious in our society don’t have the right to deny basic
human rights on that basis.
When you can show me actual, real, physical, double-blind, testable proof there’s a god, and not just your belief that there is one, then we can talk. Until then, it’s just another justification for keeping the mice out of the party, and completely unacceptable.
“The Lion believes that the ‘Spirit of the Mountain’…will come down, and squash both the lion, and the mouse, if the mouse is let into the party.”
So, where in the Bible does it say that the world will be destroyed if gay people get married? And if it does say this, why hasn’t it already happened? Gay people are getting married, and have been for some time. Some states now legalize gay marriage, and lots of countries in the world allow gay marriage. And yet, the world has not been squashed by this god you speak of. Perhaps it doesn’t happen right away. And you may say that the world seems to be falling apart all around us, which proves that your god is in fact squashing the world. However, I should remind you that the world has been at war within itself many times over before gay marriage was ever brought up in the USA.
It’s a shame that you seem to think that the fate of the world rests on the equality and civility of a small minority of people in our country. That is a lot of responsibility! No wonder you can’t let go of your beliefs. If you truly believe that the world will end when gays get married, then I can see that you might be in a panic. However, I encourage you to revisit the ideas that you so strongly hold to. There might be other possible answers that you had not considered before. Some sources if you wish to explore alternatives: http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-about-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X or http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/
I wise theologian once told me, “If you are going to preach, only preach the Gospel”. All I have to say to this blog is “Amen!”. Preach it, brother!
Amen to you Maria! As a gay Christian I think that one of the biggest problems is that the the whole Chick-fil-A debacle as well as the larger gay marriage debate really detracts from the preaching of the Gospel. The highest purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel and bring salvation, not bring self-righteous judgement on others. In letting the public face of the Church be nothing but an organization aligned against marriage equality the Church has made itself impotent in its primary mission. What gay person wants to learn about the Gospel from someone who belongs to an organization that he or she feels is aligned against them. What parent, sister, brother, grandmother, grandfather, cousin, child of a gay person wants to hear the Gospel from a Church that tells them that their loved one is not only not entitled to equal rights under civil law but also is an abomination? Make no mistake, the Church WILL CHANGE ITS PREACHING because it will have to just as it has changed it’s preaching on divorce. It will simply become increasingly impossible to keep butts in the seats and therefore keep money flowing into the coffers to keep the lights on. It will become increasingly impossible to build mega churches and have millionaire preachers without either shifting doctrine or at least de-emphasizing gay condemnation in preaching.
You have been neither gay nor Christian your entire life. At some point in your life, you made a decision to turn from your life of sin and ask Jesus Christ to be your Lord and personal Savior. At some point in your life, you made a decision to have sex with a man.
Have you been straight your entire life?
So… one must ask, at some point in your life did you decide to NOT have sex with a man? I’m male and hetero, so the idea of ever having sex with a man never came up for me. I find it fascinating that so many hetero Christians insist it’s a choice… but one they themselves never had to make? How does that work, exactly?
You missed the point. Perhaps you should re-read the essay and have some humility and humanity.
You seem to be unclear on the concept of “decision”.
If one is born into a Christian family, baptized shortly after birth, acculturated to Christian culture and daily (or weekly) taught from the first moments of rational consciousness that Christ is one’s Lord and Saviour, it becomes difficult to parse the exact point when one makes a conscious decision to become a Christian.
Doesn’t it? Mr. Self’s self-description as a lifelong Christian appears to me to be an acknowledgement of his state of being, the result of his upbringing in the Southern U.S. later confirmed in adulthood.
On the issue of being gay for one’s entire life and there being some seminal moment where one decides to engage in sex with an individual of a particular sex, consider that when one engages in intercourse one is giving expression to feelings of attraction, sex is the product of a rush of emotion and is usually utterly irrational. I am 43, just like Mr. Self and I would hazard a guess that I’ve never engaged in a sexual act the product of a rational decision, more importantly I would not describe my self-identification as a heterosexual as the product of a series of rational decisions.
When did you “decide” to be straight? To be attracted to women?
I decided to be straight soon after I first felt the stirrings of sexual desire, and every day since. I’m completely serious.
“At some point in your life, you made a decision to turn from your life of sin and ask Jesus Christ to be your Lord and personal Savior”
This is quite a specific concept of Christianity, and I’m not sure how many Christians would agree with it. The only reasonable way of deciding which (if any) religion someone adheres to is by asking them. If they say they have followed a religion their entire life, who are we to argue?
“At some point in your life, you made a decision to have sex with a man.”
Your sexual orientation is defined by who you are attracted to, not by who you have sex with. There are reasons to think that, at least for some people, your sexuality is determined at a very young age, perhaps even in the womb (because it appears to be influenced by genetics and the number of other children your mother had previously given birth to).
I apologize for speaking for the author, but I wanted to say something. Biologists have identified hundreds of animal species which display homosexual behavior including our closest relative the bonobo. The medical community has come to the consensus that men and women are born with into their sexuality (though of course sexuality is actually more of a sliding scale than black and white as ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ labels would suggest). Even if the author had never accepted this part of his life and had stayed celibate he would still be gay. Being angry or condemning someone for their sexuality is the same as hating someone for having blue eyes or being double jointed.
Having blue eyes or being double jointed are physical attributes and something that one has no control over. Sexual orientation however, is an emotional attribute and is woven into ones genes, much like addiction. Some people have more addictive personalities than others. Saying one was born gay, would be like a heroin addict saying they were born an addict. This is incorrect in my opinion, because no one is born a heroin addict. They may be more easily addicted to substances or have more of an addictive personality than others, but it’s not until they actually do heroin that they become addicted. It’s the “act” of “doing” the drugs that makes them an addict. I agree that sexuality is more of a sliding scale than black and white in the same way some people are more prone to becoming addicted to drugs than others, some may or may not be more attracted to the same sex. It’s a sliding scale because you’re dealing with ones emotions, which we do have some level of control over. The piece I see that is missing, is the fact that there are both spiritual and worldly consequences for our actions/sins whether or not we like it or agree with it. In the same way that someone, who happens to be more prone to being a addict, will face the consequences if they do become one, so there will also be consequences for someone who’s “sliding scale” leans more toward being attracted to the same sex if they act on it. Unfortunately, these decisions don’t only effect “the person making them and people around them, such as family and friends, but they also affect our society as a whole. It all starts in the home. God knew what he was doing when he created Adam and Eve. He knew that a child would need both influences of a healthy Mother and Father. He made male and female to complete each other. Also unfortunate, we live in a fallen world and therefore often have “unhealthy” parents raising children. Children are abused both sexually and emotionally. Dads are not as “present” as they should be, if at all. etc.. This is all a result of our decision to not follow God, but instead, do things “our way”. Sure, we have the “right” and free will to choose to act and live as we wish. This fact does not make it “okay” and does not change the fact that we will face the consequences of our own sin. We all bring our fair share of dysfunction to the table, but we do have the choice. I believe if we would pray for the eyes to see the way God sees, we may think twice before making our “choices”. I don’t hate gay marriage any more than I hate divorce. I don’t hate the people, what I hate, are the consequences and what it does to the very foundation of the family unit. I would ask that every person ask themselves a few questions. What are the long term consequences for same sex marriage? How does this affect our culture and the family unit? What are the long term effects on society as a whole? Do you think men “want” to make the decision to be with one women the rest of his life? If so unnatural, why then, do they make this commitment? If same sex marriage, then what next? Polyamorous marriages? Where do we draw the line? How far will it go and how will it effect our children and generations to come?
Just a minor correction: modern chimps and bonobo’s split from a common ancestor after splitting from us; in that sense, they are no more our “closest” relative than other chimps.
Otherwise, carry on.
So unless a Catholic Priest has previously had sex with a woman, there there isn’t a single heterosexual priest. None of your children are heterosexual. You are not heterosexual until the first time you engaged in intercourse.
Jealous of how well well-written and how well argued this piece is. : ) I hope it’s distributed far and wide, and as another commenter said, even if one person understands the supremacist discrimination you’re articulating and stops their own supremacy, it will be worth it. Will be using it in my critical thinking class this fall. Thank you so much!
I found the story fantastic, and although I agree with you, I think that there is an allegorical inconsistency. While the story locates the power for definition of the part with the Lion, those opposing you do not accept that they have the power to define “the party”. They claim that it is God/The Bible defining “the party”.
Now, we can set aside whether or not that is relevant to accurate reflections of what the Bible actually says about marriage because your experiment is to look at it from their point of view, and from that perspective, the Lion would say, “It’s the law of the jungle, of which I am only a servant that you are not invited.”
I would like to thank you for such a clear explanation of why so much is miscommunicated and misunderstood between groups and people. Wonderful job!
Please unsubscibe me. Thank you.
Well said, Wayne Self!
Very well said. I’d add that there are a number of gay Christians I know that actually believe gay relationships are sinful. (As in, “I know them personally” and not “they’re someone I heard a friend talk about.”) They TOO are entitled to this belief, and surely no one can accuse them of not thinking hard about the matter.
The point is that, if there’s so much debate on what Bible-believing Christians believe they are to follow on this issue, we must allow everyone who is gay and Christian (like you and me) to come to their own conclusions with “fear and trembling” of how to live their own lives. Surely, straight Christians may have opinions as well.
But legalizing gay marriage should be a separate issue from this. Poronography is legal, but I don’t see anyone trying to outlaw it. So is gossip, described in the Bible as…an abomination. Adultery is legal. Premarital sex is legal. Gambling is legal. Drunkenness is mostly legal. Being an athiest is legal. The church is still able to teach something is wrong, even if it is legal. This is a little-discussed issue in such a polarized debate. This is a false choice: “Either you support legalizing gay marriage, or you believe it is wrong.” No! You can think it’s wrong and still support legalizing it! Particularly if legalizing it affects your life in no way!
Dear Wayne,
What thoughtful, calm and clear addressing of the underlying issues. Thank you so much! I will share liberally.
Hi. You’re doing a good job dispelling the Christian myths. You talk quite a bit about that. What would you say to people who are supermacists AND atheists. You talk about “god given rights” but atheists do not believe in anything “god given”. Would be nice to see something about that. Plus, there are atheists who are supermacists against religious people. I’m one of them. How do I un-teach myself to hate?
“You have been neither gay nor Christian your entire life. At some point in your life, you made a decision to turn from your life of sin and ask Jesus Christ to be your Lord and personal Savior. At some point in your life, you made a decision to have sex with a man.”
I am a heterosexual. I don’t recall the day I sat down and contemplated being attracted to the opposite sex. I never weighed my options, making a choice, gay or straight, boys or girls? It’s just that one day I thought girls were really cool. I believe it’s because of how I am wired. And, because of my culture, I did not have to consider the ramifications of that ‘wiring’. I am willing to entertain the idea that gay men and women have a similar experience based on the way they are wired. Except that they have to deal with a homophobic society whereas I just seemed to “fit” in with the dominant culture. How convenient for me.
Life has expanded because of you. Thank you!
Thank you for this. It was a pleasure to read. It’s as though you took the thoughts and feelings I have towards the whole issue, and founds words to suit them. Also, I recently (08/04/12) wrote a short piece regarding my feelings on the issue, which I will share below.
“Let’s discuss the ‘gay issue’:
I didn’t realize how upset I generally am about the ‘gay issue’ until today. Through an episode of The Daily Show (aired on July 23rd) and several arguments with my parents, I became aware of how irritating–and more than irritating–I find the whole ‘gay issue.’ First of all, what is that? What is this acceptance that society seems to have surrendered to those words ‘gay’ and ‘issue’ being used consecutively, and in that order? The only time people should say ‘gay’ and follow it with the word ‘issue’ is when they intend to discuss how inconceivably absurd it is that there is still a ‘gay issue.’ (This is assuming the homosexual definition of the word ‘gay.’ If an outbreak of joy occurred, such that the rights of less joyful individuals were infringed upon, then perhaps the phrase ‘gay issue’ would come in handy.) For the sake of convenience, let’s pretend I’m all right with using ‘gay issue’ in the context of sexuality. How is it not obvious to everyone that there need never be any distinction made between the rights of gays and ‘non gays’? I understand that historically, psychologically, etc-ally speaking, the concept (and the reality) of homosexuality, or any sexuality that is not heterosexuality, may make some individuals uncomfortable. However, the correct response to discomfort is not intolerance, but analysis. When you observe a phenomenon that takes you out of your comfort zone–a sight, a touch, a taste, etc.–you think about it! You ask yourself, and others, “Why does this phenomenon cause this reaction in my body or brain?” Through that analysis, hopefully, you eventually come to answer the following question, “Does this phenomenon hurt others, myself, or the individuals engaged in the phenomenon itself?” If the answer is no, then, presumably, you take some time to process that phenomenon. After a finite period has passed, you accept the phenomenon and move on. Even if your acceptance is the realization that the phenomenon still makes you uncomfortable, it can easily be coupled with awareness of the fact that there is nothing fundamentally ‘wrong’ with the phenomenon in and of itself. I may be wordy, but nothing I have said, thus far, should be foreign or incomprehensible.
My claim is simply that self reflection, rather than intolerance, should follow discomfort. Let’s apply this logical way of thinking to the ‘gay issue.’ Do gays make anyone uncomfortable? Yes. Very good. Next question: are they harming themselves, or others, specifically through the awareness and pursuit of their own sexual identities? No. Wait, are you sure? They’re… not hurting anyone, but… my argument is suddenly… oh no… *sighs* I guess I’ll have to take a crack at that last step then: acceptance.
PS: I don’t mean to preach, or even to sound preachy. I apologize if anyone has a negative reaction to my words. (Keep in mind, I do not apologize for the point i made, or attempted to make.) Really, I think every individual is entitled to his or her point of view. But when your point of view infringes upon the rights of others, it becomes a problem that needs to be addressed.
PPS: Let’s take a friend’s suggestion and apply the logic to a different example. When you were toilet trained, did the notion of going potty in a toilet cause you some initial discomfort? Yes, indeed it did. Did you follow that discomfort with unflagging toilet intolerance? Oh… you did? Damn. I concede the point.”
This is brilliant. As a former evangelical pastor now at odds with my former peers, I can think of no better way to frame the debate than what you have presented here.
A website I frequent brought me to your blog, and I am forever glad I did. As a gay man, I have witnessed firsthand many hateful things said and done to members of the LGBT community in the name of religion, but I understood those hateful people were operating on what they believed the Bible to say/instruct. It didn’t and does not make it right, obviously, but when such behavior is viewed through the lens of empathy it certainly makes it easier to understand the motivation behind it. Such understanding is, tragically, short in supply in today’s world of 30 second soundbites from talking heads.
As a humanist, I am not constrained by theological debate or conflict regarding religious dictates, and so I must doff my hat to you, Mr. Self, for being able to coincide those two worlds. The post from “nope” explains so eloquently the all-too-unfortunate capacity of human beings to make things black or white with no grey inbetween, and religion tends to fall into that trap (and yes, I know other belief systems are similarly inclined, before you think me guilty of said crime!). Still, dogmatic religions appear to be the most afflicted with “either/or” thinking, and many religions all over the world fall into that category. Your post shows you have avoided this trap, and I commend you for it.
While I take some slight umbrage at your “liberal” interpretation of Aesop’s Fable, I suppose I could overlook such indelicacy given the ultimate purpose of said creative license (place your tongue in cheek if you would be so kind, thank you). All kidding aside, this was a wonderfully written article over a very necessary subject. Bravo, Mr. Self, and thank you for being yet another reasonable voice in this crazy, hurried society of ours.
Hi!
Smart and moving and kind piece on the so-called ‘Christian’ opposition to gay marriage. I hope it gets shared far and wide because I think it could make a difference. I fear that many Christians won’t see themselves as the lion though. They choose to view themselves as the underdog no matter the fact that Christianity is the majority religion in the US. They may dismiss the entire story as more lack of understanding because of liberal bias. I truly hope not because I think what you wrote is important.
Thanks again for your writing.
Karen
Thank you for such eloquent accessible words. I too am a storyteller, and applaud your revamping! The other fable of Mouse & Lion has Mouse pulling a splinter from Lion’s paw. I think that you are helping to remove the planks from our eyes when we see the splinters in the paws of others.
I love that you use the term ‘habits of mind’ – do you know the series? (I have the book series for K-12 education, by the ASCD, http://www.instituteforhabitsofmind.com/).
@Maria — privilege will be an even tougher topic to talk about. Generally when I bring up “white privilege” in my sociology classes, there seems to be a defensiveness about some, whether it be from challenging what they’ve always accepted as true or that they recognize that the granting of privilege can be arbitrary. When the Supreme Judicial Court, in 2004′s “Northridge” decision, said that nothing in the state constitution defined marriage as only a man and a woman, a caller on a Boston talk radio program talked about how his marriage of 65 years was threatened by the decision. It’s all about privilege…
I love how you approach things (fair & firm). Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Beautiful piece. Great thought process. The parable was a great way to explain how lack of condemnation of extreme words and actions harms the subject just as much, if not more, as the words and actions themselves.
[...] of writing on gay marriage that I have ever read. You should read it too. It’s here –> >> this is the subject of this post. please read it <<. It might take you awhile to finish it. It’s a bit long. Take your time. It’s worth [...]
This piece was so masterfully written. I have facebook friends who feel “wronged ” by the chick fil A controversy as Christians, and I, as a mouse not invited to the party, have struggled to explain that the important “bashing ” has been happening to gay people. You were compassionate and kind and very honest and wise. I am a teacher of second and third graders and as I read this I thought about what a fine teacher you are, for every age.
Octopi in a forest?!?! C’mon now.
+1
Octopuses in the forest – yes! http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
I cannot fully express my joy and relief at reading your article. I particularly love this: “I’ve had time to change my supremacist habits of mind…by humbling myself and not demanding that I must agree with everyone in order to support them, and, most importantly, by admitting that other people’s real lives were more important than my mere beliefs.” I am reminded to be patient and loving, to live up to my own expectations of other people throughout this perpetual debate. Thank you! Thank you.
Some commentary from the Benedictines, because superiority/supremacy is one of the forms of pride that is a sin:
“Pride is the most dangerous of sins, because it blinds our understanding, and unless something finally makes us realize the truth, we are liable to go on, day after day, in a spiritual self-delusion, imagining our acts to be good and virtuous when certain habits actually may be vicious.” … “Pride of superiority makes us want to control the lives of others, to impose ourselves on them, to “domineer” over them. It makes our will rigid and unbending when others assert authority.”
From The Seven Capital Sins (by Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration)
Theologically, pride is considered the root or a contributor to of all of the seven capital sins. This kind of pride hides under the appearance of humility, and the people who suffer from it believe (as you note) that they are humble, accepting, and full of grace, and present themselves that way, while continuing to exhibit pride in everything they do.
What a wonderful explanation! Thank you. I hope that someday we will all live according to the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
What a beautiful and insightful piece! Thank you.
I enjoyed reading your article, it did illuminate some things for me. From a purely technical/legal standpoint, we (those of us who support marriage equality) be a bit more careful of how we talk about the issue.
We need to advocate for marriage equality: the right of any two consenting adults to marry. But instead many advocate for “equal rights for gays” or “equal rights for LGBT people”. The problem with this language, in a purely legal-technical sense, is that those groups do have equal rights with regard to marriage. In other words, whether a person is gay or straight, everyone has the same right, namely the right to marry a consenting person of the opposite sex. That right is afforded to gay people just like it is to straight people — all of us can marry someone of the opposite sex.
I know this seems ridiculously semantic. But from a technical-legal sense it is important. We understand innately that marriage is about love. However, the law does not see “love” as required for marriage. The law deals in unions of people, primarily for tax purposes and a few other civil benefits. In law, words matter. And this fight is about changing the law.
But it is different from the traditional civil rights battles of our past, and so we cannot rely solely on a demand for “equality” because in the eyes of the law, we’re already there. So the civil right that we seek is the freedom for any two consenting adults to marry — not merely giving gay people “the right to marry” — because in a legal sense they already have the right to marry and it is exactly the same right afforded to straight couples.
Sometimes — as in legal battles — the semantics that seem so silly actually matter in the legal fight. Sorry for my soapbox, I just caught some references in your (outstanding) blog post that made me want to share.
Thank you so much, Wayne. Beautifully put, easily explained so that anyone who chooses to can understand and maybe even walk away a bit better for having read the piece.
Blessings to you and yours!
Matthew 25:40
King James Version (KJV)
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
So……it is clear to me that if we (as a people, or even just random people) consider gays inferior….pretending for a second we are all Christian (I’m not) and pretending we feel this way (I don’t) then I WOULD BE WRONG IN TREATING GAYS DIFFERENTLY….because the Bible clearly says if you do it to the “least” you do it to God.
You can’t treat gays differently and pretend to be God-like. It says so, right there.
I rest your case, Wayne Self.
Excellent article. I would posit that we are all supremacist in one way or another, that this is part of the condition of being human. The question, though, is whether, when our supremacy is pointed out to us, we respond by considering what is being said to us, considering our own biases, trying to apply theory of mind – or whether we dig in our heels and refuse to budge, even when what’s being pointed out is that our supremacy is hurting someone else.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Beautiful piece; thank you for writing this, Wayne.
One inaccuracy is in this essay, though, with regard to Chick-fil-A and Chicago. Mayor Emanuel has little to do with blocking them–there’s already a location in the Streeterville neighborhood, which is tourist central. The proposed location is being help up by Ald. Moreno, the reason being that CFA has a history of discriminating against LGBT folks for jobs, right down to having it enshrined in their employee handbook. Since discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in the state, the alderman’s reasoning for not approving their permits stems from that.
Thank you. By far the most “bang on” article I have read on the subject. Truly inspired. Even if I mostly considered myself as an open-minded, accepting strait guy that embraced other cultures and have friends in every walk of life, I could see that subtle, cunning sense of superiority pop up. Never did I see it so clearly! Your article … changed me. For the better. Again, thank you .
I don’t have anything particularly insightful to say, and with me you were preaching to the choir as I’ve always supported LGBT rights and marriage, but you spoke your piece really well, and it’s the best-reasoned article for the cause that I’ve read. Thanks for helping me to clarify why I believe the things that I believe.
I’ll be subscribing to your blog. It’s intelligent and thoughtful and I’ve never read a gay Christian perspective on the LGBT rights/marriage issues, so it will be interesting as well. Thanks for writing this piece.
Like many I feel the article was well written. The use of the lion and most fable really illustrated your point. I agree also that christia inity should be about acceptance and love. I disagree with some of your commenters. It was not respectful nor do i think it validated anyone. But i also understand that you shouldn’t have to watch out for hurt feelings. As a writer you probably chose your words for the greatest impact. That said how do you differentiate those that feel the way they do out of feelings of supremacy versus those who believe sincerely?
Great article. It’s always nice to hear from those who’ve actually spent a great deal of time thinking deeply on an issue, rather than merely regurgigating some hackneyed, superficial rhetoric.
However, I do take issue with one small part of what you said. When it comes to the issue of whether or not Christians ought to have the prerogative to exclude gays from the “marriage-defining party”, you take the approach of showing that there is no Biblical basis for preventing gays from marrying.
I can certainly understand why you took this approach. Given that your target audience is clearly Christians, and you yourself identify as a Christian, I think you made the right call. I wouldn’t have written it any differently under those circumstances.
However, I think that your approach glosses over a crucial point, which is that EVEN IF the Bible really did say “Gays should never be allowed to marry. Ever. End of story.”, Christians would STILL not be within their rights to exclude gay people from the marriage-defining party.
I think that’s one of the most difficult, seemingly intractable aspects of the gay marriage debate, and of the broader societal struggle of which it is a part. Namely, Christians naturally place God above all else, even (if not especially) above society and the laws of mankind. In their view, then, it is not only their right, but their moral duty to God, to try to shape society to conform to their beliefs. This includes passing laws to enforce Biblical principles. Whether those principles are really and truly derived from the Bible, or merely perceived to be, is a separate point.
Non-religious people, as well as many followers of religions other than Christianity, on the other hand, see that Christianity is merely ONE religion out of many, and that religion itself is merely one type of worldview out of many. From that perspective (which also happens to be my perspective), there is no sane reason that Christianity (or *any* religion, for that matter), should be allowed to dominate society to such an extent that it effectively turns entire groups of people into second-class citizens.
But how do you convince a Christian that what they perceive to be the “Law of God” should take a back seat to the Constitution? Clearly this problem is not unique to Christianity. Any sufficiently ardent monotheist is likely to share this view. There are parts of the world where the same exact secular-vs-spiritual social struggles are being played out, except with Jews or Muslims playing the role of the lion instead of Christians.
I think your approach of reminding Christians that Christ wanted us to all love each other, and that the Bible doesn’t actually condemn gay marriage is not only a valid argument, but a necessary one. I absolutely applaud you for taking the time to think this through and present it in such a clear and compelling way.
The optimist part of me thinks that if everyone could just read this article and take it to heart, we could make some great strides toward true equality. But the pessimist part of me wonders just how much *real* progress can be made so long as Christians still see it as their moral imperative to try to force society to conform to their religion, rather than seeing their religion as something that needs to adapt in order to integrate into an ever-broader, more inclusive society.
Bravo, brother. I don’t know what else to say. You are truly evolved.
This, this, a thousand times THIS.
*love*
It’s a vicious cycle… taking the ability to choose away from another person will eventually lead to no choices for anyone. I applaud your argument.
From a social standpoint I agree that christians should not have this monopoly on the benefits of marriage and not allow same sex couples to partake in those same benefits.
It’s hard to interweave the social aspect of the debate and the spiritual one.
While I would not be against gay marriage of cicil union or whatever, from a spiritual standpoint i still would disagree with it.
Where the whole metaphor of the mouse and lion story is lacking is that in the spiritual / biblical debate of gay marriage, the Lion is not the one who gets to decide who is allowed in the party. It’s not our choice to not allow certain people who “disgust” us in. In face none of the animals including the Lion would be allowed in because every animal is “disgusting” by nature.
Only through Jesus can any of us be allowed to the party in the first place. But we’re all invited, Accepting the invitation involves repentance of all of our “disgusting” nature and responding to His love with obedience. So it’s not the Lion making the rules of who gets in so to speak. And if you believe the bible you can’t expect to maintain who were were before and be “allowed” in.
To be clear this goes for every animal and not just “Mice”. Every animal is disgusting and has to repent and change. Mice are getting the attention lately because of the social pressure attached to their inclusion into marriage rights, a debate which must be detached from the spiritual discourse about it. But every Animal is disgustin in its own way and HAS to be redeemed. None of the other animals are any more qualified than the mouse.
The church cannot confrom to culture’s every move. We can disagree and still love Mice (LGB T) just as much as we disagree with all the other people in church who are also sinners.
You can’t fault the Lion for obeying his convictions and assume he should just change the rules. He doesn’t make the rules. Asking him to change the rules would be like asking the mouse to become a Lion.
Again, different story in the social debate, but there has to be a difference in the spiritual one lets the church lose every foundation that is challenged. by society.
So jealous that you were able to so beautifully articulate everything I have ever felt on this debate. I wish I could make everyone sit down and really read this piece and understand what you are saying here. Bravo.
I just read a few posts so I wanted to say this, which some others have probably said.
I come from a very conservative state, and I sometimes see homosexuals that try to justify that the reason it’s okay to be gay is that it is not a choice. I agree, it is not a choice, but that is not the reason it is okay to be gay. That we expect you to justify it at all is the problem. Whether you choose to be or not, that isn’t the issue. It’s not something that is okay or not okay, as it doesn’t warrant that type of judgement. It’s that you being gay really should play no part in your humanness and acceptance as an equal to myself.
Where I’m from, being atheist tends to yield judgement as well. Clearly, it is perceived that it is my choice to be atheist, and in opposition to a god because I firmly don’t believe in a god. For me, that’s like saying it’s a choice to believe the world is round. It is. It just is. This belief that I have stands in the face of Christian beliefs way more than being a homosexual.
However, I have the right to be married and have more rights under the law than a homosexual Christian.
As a conservative Christian who became a Christian late in life after God intervened in my life and delivered me from drug addiction – I would make the following observations:
God is real, and whether you believe or not, you will stand before Him in judgment at the end of your life. Whether a person feels they were born gay or not, that should not matter – God is able to transform the mind when a person accepts Jesus Christ and becomes born again. It happened to me, in that God was able to transform my mind and my addictions.
In fact, there is this verse in the Bible: 1 corinthians
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
So in this letter, Paul is stating that even some of the members of the Corinthian church were once homosexual – but were transformed by Christ. That is what it means to be “Born Again” – its a miraculous event whereby a person receives the Spirit that was in Christ – The Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, it gives us a conscience that we did not possess prior to accepting Christ. In my experience, prior to being born again, I would have one night stands- picking women up at bars and have no feelings of remorse or guilt about it. After my conversion, and before I had ever read the bible or been to church – I did the same thing – except this time, my conscience was very strong in condemning my actions. This was because I had received a new spirit that was in the process of renewing my mind – and helping me to see my sin the way that Christ sees it.
Homosexuals need to be born again – just like everyone else. You can call yourself a Christian, but if the Holy Spirit didn’t enter into you – you are not really a Christian – Jesus said “A man must be born again”
We can change who we are to a certain extent by the power of our will and we measure ourselves against other flawed men and think we are OK. The truth is, God measures us against a perfect righteousness – Heaven is absolute perfection and any flawed soul that made it there would ruin it. Therefore – God, in his mercy, made a way for us imperfect people to enter Heaven – and that requires that are flawed soul be reborn through the power of Christ. God looks at us and sees Christ’s righteousness.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! This article was well-written, well-thought, and well-timed for publication. As I read your words, I was taken back to days of my youth when I listened to ministers, family members, and friends espouse the many attributes of being a Christian. How we were ALL God’s children. How Jesus taught Love and Acceptance. And I watched as these same people used their words to bash those who did not fit into their ideals. Sadly, I was one of those who did not fit. Because I am gay I cannot possibly be God’s child because He did not intend for us to love members of the same sex the way we are “supposed” to love members of the opposite sex.
Like you, I have had my supremacist thoughts. For a long time I believed myself to be smarter than my parents simply because I went to college. I believed that since I was into more intellectual endeavors that I was better than them. How wrong I was. I am only better than the person I was yesterday. Each day that I can overcome my supremacist thoughts is a day I get closer to the love and acceptance Jesus taught.
Again, my thanks to you for your article. I also need to thank a dear friend of mine for posting it to my Facebook wall. The Universe knew I needed to “hear” your message.
Love and Peace
Chuck
Beautiful article! I love reading pieces like this that so clearly and rationally lay things out. It makes the few comments from people who “don’t get it” stand out all the more.
Sadly, what they don’t understand is that, if they are truly Christian, then the LAST thing they should be doing is condemning anyone else, including saying, “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. That’s just a copout. Jesus said that one should not only not judge, but should tend to their own sins and shortcomings before pointing out anyone else’s perceived faults or sins. And using the excuse of “faith” to deny someone else their rights is not only morally wrong, it’s completely against the separation of church and state.
The country, and indeed the world, will be a better place when we have true marriage equality. It is wrong to deny a portion of the population ANY of the rights that the rest enjoy. May the mouse, and his brothers and sisters, soon be able to party with the rest of the animals, without censure, in true equality.
Thanks again for a GREAT article! I’m going to share it on facebook.
My motivation for supporting equality is equally altruistic and selfish – and quite simple. I want the liberty to behave without consequence (where my actions harm no-one) and recognize that I must grant this to others if I am to expect it for myself.
I have no feelings about who’s attracted to whom, just let me know if you have a male or female partner so I can use the right words when sending you holiday cards. But I deliberately champion the rights of oppressed groups because I have the expectation those groups will champion my rights. I want to see fursuit enthusiasts shopping in costume at the mall. I want to see cannabis growing in the sun. I want to see men kissing and women kissing and men & women kissing anywhere without reservation. I want to see adult men and women free to choose prostitution as a career, and free to buy that service.
Human society has, at varying times, experimented with “No Victim, No Crime” philosophy and each time the world has not quite been ready for that to work. But I argue that it can work, if we stop defining our self esteem as supremecy. We must give it another try or there will always be oppressed people of morally sustainable worth.
And I want to walk through a fire and not be burned. IMPOSSIBLE all of our “choices” have consequences both spiritually and worldly, whether or not you like it or agree with it.
Thank you!
This is marvellous thinking and writing, but I have to tell you; it will not be read by the people who need to read it.
Unless you can distill it into a soundbite or two, preferably with a funny quip– it will not be heard.
So let’s get to work to figure out how to turn this into the lingua franca.
This is an amazing article. As a writer– I am in awe.
As a human– I thank you. I hope that this reaches the folks who need to read it, and not just those of us who already know it.
Beautiful. And so helpful.
Dig deeper. We get into trouble when our assumptions are wrong. Scriptural veracity? There are many books and gods. Theodicy. Euthyphro. Faith is belief without proof, and what can be believed without proof can be dismissed without proof. Get the religious stuff out of the way.
I have to stop wayyyyy back on that letter and just focus on the whole “Homosexual agenda” bit.
There was a speaker, possibly comedian – wish I could remember who. I actually think it was on a TED Talk. His bit when it came to that was priceless. Paraphrasing it:
“I kept hearing about this ‘gay agenda.’ I was really upset – I’ve been to the meetings, I’m out of the closet and I never got a copy of it. How was I supposed to be following the gay agenda if I didn’t have it?
Then I found a copy. It’s everywhere in this country. It’s hidden in plain sight. You may have heard of it – a two volume set, the Constitution and the Bill of rights.
The gay agenda is simply to be given the same rights – freedom from persecution, protection from being fired simply for what you are – as everyone else.”
Now, I’m straight, not even “curious.” But that was the best comeback, the most honest and, really, hard to argue against counter for this “gay agenda” nonsense I’d ever heard. No tiptoeing around. Just the same rights as everyone else – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In this country, we’ve slowly come to realize inequality and realize granting those rights to other groups we’ve denied them to – by race, sex, religion, national origin – is the proper thing to do. I can only hope we’ll realize denying those same rights to another group solely because of sexual orientation – and because of a few *religions,* which not everyone believes in, and which cant’ even agree among themselves – is just as wrong, and rectify the situation.
The sad thing about equality is that people who oppose it often employ a zero-sum argument. They believe that somehow their rights as a white person/male/heterosexual/etc are being threatened because the rights for a minority/female/homosexual/etc are being expanded. Equal opportunities (be it marriage or work) does not harm anyone, rather it enriches our community because new voices and ideas are allowed to enter. Also, marriage equality does not need to encroach on religious freedoms. Many religious organizations from evangelical Christian to Catholic to Muslim and Conservative Judaism do not support homosexuality, and there is no plan to force them to. Instead the LGBT community just requests that their commitments be recognized by the government and if they would like religious ceremonies they can have them performed by religious organizations which accept their unions such as Episcopal Church, Reform Synagogues, and progressive Protestant churches.
As a heterosexual woman, I would be ecstatic if everyone who is a consenting adult were able to marry the partner of their choice.
Well said!!! More Christians need to recognize that Christ never preached hate nor supremacy. I had to realize that. I am a better person for it. Christ never excluded anyone (think the woman with the alabaster box), so why should those whom claim to be Christians and his ambassadors here in this world???
Please withhold name if ever quoted. Thanks. Keep up the good work!!!!
I liked this article, although I disagree with the analogy. It’s not that homosexuals aren’t allowed to come to a party. I feel that it’s more that people are denying their right to partake in an action that may lead to self actualization. Studies have repeated shown that people in committed relationships (straight or homosexual) are happier, more satisfied, and more likely to benefit society.
I don’t quite understand why some of the comments take issue with the phrase:
“I may not totally agree with your choices”
You don’t have to agree with other’s choices in order to accept that they aren’t yours to make. Not agreeing with someone’s choices means that in the same situation, you would do something different. Accepting others’ choices means that you realize that they aren’t your decisions to make and (usually) it is none of your business. I am Christian and took a while to convert to being pro-marriage equality.
I value committed relationships (part of why I converted) and don’t agree with those who whose lifestyle involves many one night stands. However, it’s none of my business.
Although your sexuality is not a choice, acting on it is. That may be what the person meant, rather than implying that being gay is a choice. Part of my gradual shift in beliefs started with this thought. I believe that sexual acts should be reserved for committed (preferably marital) relationships (I would never try to force this belief on others/what consenting adults do is none of my business).
I couldn’t validate the belief that homosexuals couldn’t be married, because that would mean they would never have what I feel is the best place for a sexual relationship. I’ve been married to the love of my life for 5 years. The experiences we’ve shared and the comfort of our commitment has brought so much to our “private lives” and I couldn’t, even in my head, deny that to any other person.
I know where those who wrote the cited comments are coming from. I’ve been there. I know that changing beliefs drilled into you from childhood is hard (12 years of Catholic education). True beliefs develop with experience. My experience of marriage and the happiness of a legally recognized commitment led me to the full realization of what was being denied to non-straight people. You love who you love. And my strongest value is love.
Loved the way you told this. When I get into an argument about gay marriage with a Christian, I state that I believe in the God of love one another as I have loved you. The fable made it even more real and to the point.
This is a great analogy and beautiful writing.
This is the most eloquent and rhetorically effective piece I’ve read explaining the position of individuals in minority groups and their relations to the group who has power. You write with sound logic, employ good story to illustrate your points, and also appeal emotionally to your audience. Thank you so much for this! I will save a copy of this for future reference.
This is so powerful. All I can think of is how you can make the Bristle Palins to read this, and if they do read this, how they can truely appreciate the fundamentals behind your articulation and sophistication. Sadly, we can see from the presidential campaign: the dumbed down lies and catch-phases from the Romney camp work magic to actually make people voting against their interests!
[...] for a slightly different tactic, Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin, one of those rare potentially bridge-building essays which does that difficult job without [...]
Sir,
I will not annoy by re-submitting my comment from yesterday, but I wonder if you could tell me why it was not approved from the moderation queue while other, later comments have been? There was nothing sensational or derogatory in it, so I am at a loss.
Let me preface this with I don’t enjoy conflict. I avoid political and social conflict because I have a hard time adequately expressing myself in a way that would be honoring to God. In fact even now, my heart is pounding wildly in my chest and my hands are shaking, but I am tired of fearing offending people and what they might think of me. I am sure a chat forum isn’t the most optimal setting for this, but I have these things posted on my wall by people whom I truly love but who, if I were to post my beliefs on their wall or bring them up to them they would be offended, hurt, and even consider my closed-minded. And maybe I am slightly “closed-minded” in the world’s views, and I am fine with that. In fact, it is not really about me and whether or not I am closed-minded or you and whether or not you are open; we are not really that important. I too am a Christian, but I think Christian is a quite loose and general term. You are correct in saying that it is pretty easy for the most part in the United States to say that you are a Christian, but 1) saying you are a Christian, practicing the “religion”, going to church does not mean you are a Christian and 2) it is not easy in all parts of the world. There are still indeed Christian martyrs even in modern day society in many parts of the world. But back to 1), culturally in most parts of the US it is acceptable to be Christian and in the midwest, I would argue even preferable. Christianity is unlike any other religion in that it is not about being religious. Jesus was not religious. As a genuine Christian it is not about doing all of the right things and earning the approval of an almighty God; that would be a hopeless religion because we are all sinful in nature, but rather God became flesh in the form of Jesus and died on a cross as the ultimate sacrifice for mankind for once and for all. God then regenerates our hearts that we would experience this truth, this forgiveness, this Grace that is so foreign to us as humans, but it is not our doing. We cannot earn it or attain it in any way shape or form, so when we talk about Christianity I hesitate to know what you are truly speaking of-someone who is truly regenerated by Christ or someone who goes to church and is basically a loving and kind person. The latter is culturally acceptable, but the first is mocked and misunderstood, because quite frankly it doesn’t make sense to people who have not been regenerated. It is not an elitist thing; God changes the hearts of sinners who are utterly lost, and when someone receives this gift and realizes the gravity of it, they can hardly help but to react in ways that seem crazy to other people. It leads you to a kind of longing to do the right thing and even more so to surrender your life-to be willing to let go of your old ways and even comforts of this life.
So in specifically addressing LGBT, I would say that the Bible is clear on the subject of marriage and sexual relationships that it is to be between a man and a woman within the realms of marriage, and I am not saying that this is modeled in our culture or even the “Christian culture” today. It is disheartening to hear about even ministers and church leaders abusing their power in regards to sexual relationships, but marriage is designed to bring God glory and to model the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. However, I do not disregard the fact that many people are born with a very real temptation toward homosexual attraction. In the same way some people are more tempted to abusing pornography, premarital sex, even lust, and sins go far and beyond the realm of sex, and I have heard just about every sin justified. I know people who have battled same-sex attraction their entire lives, but they love the Lord and they know the weight of their sin, and so with the help of God they fight it. I personally have sin that could very easily seem as though it is “just part of who I am” because it has always been so prevalent in my life, and I am even often tempted to think that way because it would be easier if I could just blame it on my nature, but my sin holds a lot of weight, it led to crucifixion so I must fight it.
Despite my constant struggle with my sin-nature, I know that God loves me. There is no other way to explain a death on the cross, and I don’t feel any differently about my sin or yours, but it is important that we recognize sin for what it is and stop justifying it. I am sure that this is not read easily, but I am tired of standing by and saying nothing. I pray that you would be able to experience Grace and freedom in the way that only God can provide.
That was a very well-written response to the letter you recieved. Your use of the fable was a particularly creative way of explaining the struggle for LGBT equality. As a Lutheran Pastor and the family member of someone who identifies as LGBT I grieve the ‘loudness’ of that branch of Christianity that is so vehemently against LGBT inclusion and the silence of some of those Christians who see that the spectrum of our sexuality and our expression of love is a testament to the wideness of God’s creative love for us. That God would create us to be more than just male and female and capable of loving beyond boundaries is proof that we are indeed created in the image of God who is beyond gender and loves beyond all definitions and boundaries. It saddens me that the media only chooses to hear and amplify the voices of those who would put parameters on God’s love–every time I hear from the Christian Right on the supremecy of ‘traditional’ marriage I want to shout–that is not my God, that is not my Jesus!!!
Anyway, I want to thank you for your article and your work—advocacy on behalf of the LGBT community and all who are disenfranchised is truly Holy work–God bless you.
This is all about the money. Government should just get out of the marriage business and let people, churches and atheist live their live without government interference or social engineering. A Church cannot be made to do what is against their God given rights and the others can form whatever organizations they want to form and condone and give their relationships whatever name they want. …but be careful what you ask for America. I guess polygamy is the next battle but who am I to judge another but if the government can figure out how to tax it or use it as a wedge to win over more votes it will be made legal one day.
[...] blog post about the chicken sandwich company that went viral. The post today is about a follow up, Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin. The concept of Ms. Palin as an advocate for “traditional marriage” is kinda bizarre. [...]
This post got me to thinking. This headache is your fault. Here is a reaction. http://wp.me/pca2S-67F
While most of this well-reasoned, and presented without a great deal of invective, there is, nonetheless, some inherent flaws in your argument / article:
- While Bryan Fisher has made some outrageous claims which leave one scratching their head, his support of the woman kidnapping her daughter appears to be based on the child showing signs of potential abuse (as revealed in the video you link to), not because she felt the other people were unfit parents solely because of their sexuality (as you claim)
- “… by humbling myself and not demanding that I must agree with everyone in order to support them…” – yet you are demanding that others agree with your stance on homosexual marriage in order to be supportive of you – is that right? And if not, it’s automatically because they think they (or their relationships) are better than you (you indicate this in several places).
- “and, most importantly, by admitting that other people’s real lives were more important than my mere beliefs.” Here is a fundamental flaw in the whole debate. Not everyone is willing to as casually dismiss what, for them, are personally held beliefs (nor should they be shamed or harassed into it either) – to them, their beliefs are not nearly as “mere” as you make them seem. One side of the debate sees the issue of marriage as being a religious one – one side sees it as a social/political one. Don’t expect either side, with their heels firmly dug in, to budge on that. To both sides, these beliefs are not at all “mere”. Understanding that will aide both sides.
- “But here’s the problem: the basis of that disagreement is her belief that her relationships are intrinsically better than ours.” Um…no, I don’t think that’s the case, and is reading into her statements something that is not there. Those who support traditional marriage (can’t speak for all of them, of course), are not necessarily looking down their noses at your relationships – they are merely holding the belief that Scripture defines what marriage is. And throwing in Old Testament examples of polygamy and such, as well as examples of OT law is ignoring both the difference in the descriptive and prescriptive nature of Scripture (it is both, and study is needed to know when one is being used vs another), and the fact that the OT Law (which we are no longer under after the first coming of Christ) was purposed for setting God’s people apart from their culture of the day (among other things).
Look, the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin (both Old and New Testaments). In bringing that up, I am not trying to be condemning or judgmental – it’s just a fact. It’s in there. You do with that what you will. It is never mentioned in a vacuum, and is on a list of other sins as well that most everyone can be found on (me included).
To expect someone who believes that in coming to Christ we are to turn from our sin (which, if you do not believe that, then you do not share the same definition of being a Christian – which only further complicates the issue) to then embrace homosexual marriage is not realistic. It would be akin asking them to encourage a thief to continue stealing.
There is conceit to simply say that someone who doesn’t agree with my position, or see the issue in the same context as I do, is obviously a supremacist. I mean, isn’t believing that, in and of itself, a supremacist way of thinking? Aren’t you saying that if someone doesn’t share your opinion or view that it’s because there is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning that prevents them from seeing that you’re the one with the supreme position? To paraphrase your article: “But here’s the problem: the basis of that disagreement is your belief that your position is intrinsically better than ours.”
I do applaud your efforts here. Your positioned is as well-defined as I have seen. Alas, we will come to different conclusions on the issue of marriage. We just will. I don’t think I’m better than you because of that. I’m going on the assumption that you don’t think yourself better than me because of that either.
We simply disagree.
I have a bigger question that I don’t hear either side asking.. How can I, as a brother in Christ who is in disagreement with you on this issue, love and serve you – in a way that doesn’t require me to change my position on the issue of marriage?
My suspicion is that there are many who will say that I cannot love you if I fail to be moved to your side. I disagree. And that’s the conversation I’m more interested in having.
I don’t want this to be the hill that Christians pick to die on. Sadly, many have. For all the hurt other Christians may have caused you, I am truly sorry, and ask your forgiveness on their behalf.
God be with you brother!
Wayne,
Initially I thought I was a supporter of gay rights who was appalled at the backlash that came from Chick Fil-A’s publicity. I was irritated that this issue is still an issue in this day and age. And yet, I was also irritated that people wanted to boycot and “silence” an opinion (Chick Fil-A). I felt the backlash was reverse bullying.
I was a supporter of gay rights and a supporter of Chick-Fil-A and their rights to do/say what they felt.
However, after reading your posts and thinking on things a bit, I think my mind is changing. I still support gay rights. I support any human rights. But your illustration of the Lion and the mouse – well, it makes me see things in a new light. I”m not 100% sure what that light is just yet, but your words are working on me.
Thank you for the brave and well thought out post.
I enjoyed reading the article, and I am sorry that the world is not (yet) the place we would all like it to be
But I have a more appropriate fable
There once was a mouse
The mouse was generally happy but felt that, for whatever reason, he was not everything that he wanted to be.
He looked around and spied a Lion and said….I like the way people look at him. They give him a great deal of respect. They say he is the king of beasts…I want people to look at me that way.
So he demanded that they change the definition of the word Lion to include Mice
This coaused great consternation in the animal world….now every time someone said Lion you would have to wonder, and perhaps ask…..the cat lion, or the mouse lion???
Now some would say, it does not matter but then you would run the risk of making grave errors in jusdgement because you might expect and plan/provide for two very different animals that had vastly different requirements.
To make it simpler, it was suggested that whenever space was being allotted or meals provided that both Lion and Mouse would get the same space and amount of food that the larger animal required but they would keep their own names. This would result in a great waste of resources, but it would be the “fair” approach to making them equals in all regards, without changing the meaning of their names. All the encyclopedias would not have to be rewritten and add pictures of moce alongside the cat under the heading of “Lion”
A witch offered to change the mouse into a Lion, which seemed like the perfect plan
But the Mouse feared that he would never feel like the lions equal unless he were called a Lion, and he wanted to physically continue to be a a mouse…so no hocus pocus!
So again, he demanded that the DEFINITION of the word Lion be changed
He did not ask that it be changed to allow any other animal to be a lion….only the mice (and Lions of course)
Fearing for the self esteem of the mice, the animal world decided to change the definition of the word Lion to include Mice. After all, they did not want to seem intolerant.
So mice could now be called Lions…if they wished…and not all did….some were very happy and proud to be mice and had no desire to be called Lions
And the mouse that started it all….the one wearing the T-shirt that says Lion Pride
Cannot figure out why nobody looks at him any differently now that they call him a Lion
I support equal rights for all Americans regardless of sexual preference
But words have meanings…and they should not be changed simply to make someone feel better about themselves.
This one made me cry just a bit. So. So. Good. Thanks, Wayne. I really like your brainz.
I agree with you, Joe. And I’ve had the same problems as far as growing up in the rural South. I grew up believing that I was inherently “better” than African-Americans and LGBT members, but coming up to Durham has changed that. I’d never thought I was better, as in a better human, but… details still get to me. I realize that someone who is part of the LGBT community can be smarter, nicer, and a better person than I am.
I am also a libertarian Christian with conservative leanings, and I know that there is no possible way that we can convince my kin to agree that everyone deserves equal marriage. What gets me the worst is that many disagree with legal unions. Everyone, no matter what, deserves a legal union with the person of their choice. Marriage is a touchy subject to many, and it is not my place to try and change their faith. However, I am not hurting anyone or even remotely going against any religion’s true beliefs in any way, shape, or interpretation when I say that a legal union is deserved. What’s the difference between wanting to love my girlfriend and a girl loving her girlfriend? It’s sad. I do feel for you, and I support your cause. Marriage may be a bit of a leap for many groups’ beliefs, but a recognized legal union will hopefully be in the near future.
My dear Mr. Self,
You have put lyrics to the song in my heart, and have done so in the most eloquently loving way. I appreciate your patience and tolerance–in keeping the melody beautiful and sincere rather than harsh and dissonant as can so easily happen in discussing the emotionally-charged subject of civil rights. I truly wish I could articulate my thoughts as beautifully and clearly as you have done, but in the absence of my own ability to do so, I am very grateful that you can. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Self.
Very best wishes,
Melisa Wallace
I would like these Christians to produce a quote from Jesus Christ himself in which he condemns homosexuals, homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. But I’m not going to hold my breath, because it doesn’t exist. In order to find biblical opposition to same-sex marriage, they must follow a letter-of-the-law Old Testament. This is not Christianity, however, because Christ specifically said he came to wipe away the old law and bring a new one. If anyone should speak out against gay marriage it ought to be Jews, but interestingly I don’t hear about any prominent Jews doing so, just “Christians”. Maybe if they stop their hypocrisy they will suffer fewer attacks.
Just a brilliant piece of writing. Sending it out far and wide. Thank you.
–A straight ally
Though Wayne Self claims he does not want to “hurt or offend, or shut down discussion,” he is still indulging in ad hominem attack, lion story or no lion story. Wayne Self is saying that unless a person agrees with him, that person is a supremacist. What he wants is for Christians to say that homosexuality is morally equal to heterosexuality. This is a statement about sexuality, but he makes it a statement about the value of a whole person. He seems to assume that a person’s sexuality is the sum total of their identity. Is his identity truly nothing more than his sexuality? That is not my view.
Perhaps because of his understanding of identity as sexuality, Wayne Self feels justified in vilifying those who disagree with him about the morality of homosexuality (calling them supremacists), which is also what bugs me about the Chick-Fil-A protest. I am currently listening to the book, Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, and I cannot help seeing parallels between the rhetoric of the Islamic revolutionaries of the 1980s and the rhetoric used against Chick-Fil-A and by Self in his essay. (Likewise the Red Guard in Nien Cheng’s memoir Life and Death in Shanghai.) I see in Wayne Self’s essay the tragic irony of people who, in the name of justice and relieving oppression, feel self-righteous about vilifying and condemning those who disagree with them. Will we never learn from history? (Martin Luther King, Jr., however, was one revolutionary who avoided this pitfall.)
Wayne Self also uses a definition of “Christian” that I think confuses the conversation. From my experience of Christianity, what we believe to be true matters a great deal. Jesus – the Christ in Christianity- is a real person we can know. For me Christianity is not just a belief about ideas, not just a philosophy or code of ethic; it is knowing God as a person and trusting what that Person says (and has said and done). This kind of “Christian” would never say what Wayne Self prints in bold near the end of his essay: “I must agree with everyone in order to support them, and, most importantly, by admitting that other people’s real lives were more important than my mere beliefs.” For Wayne Self, “beliefs” are not “real.” He goes on to say that this statement is the essence of Jesus’s teaching, which only provokes me because so many people do not know Jesus’s teachings for themselves, and so they might believe Self. If Wayne Self is serious about being a Christian, he would do well to ponder the words of Jesus in Luke 9:25: “What good is it for a man (or woman) to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his (or her) very self?”
A wonderful and insightful work. You have given me a fable and words that I have searched for for so long to say when members of my faith and family condemn homosexuality as a sin and refuse to be compassionate and understand my thoughts. Thankyou.
brilliant! thank you for a wonderful and entertaining read. thank you, also, for a very enlightening treatise. i applaud your ability to make something so close to my heart so easy for everyone to understand. it’s so much more about what so many take for granted because they never have had to fight for it. thank you again!
Beautifully written.
I was in New Orleans the day of that terrible fire. We saw the crowd, we saw the smoke, and we saw some of the burn victims coming out of the bar. I hurried my friends away because I did not want them traumatized and I did not want us to be in the way of rescuers.
To this day, I still feel some of the terror of that moment.
I can only imagine. It’s a daunting topic to write about. I hope I do it justice.
No words. Thank you for this beautifully written work. It confronts the issue clearly, but gently. I often have these conversations, as a 40-something year old man with a 19 year marriage to my wonderful partner living in the Midwest.
I will be sharing this blog, and expect to receive quite a few interesting comments. In essence, you have summarized the things I have been trying to convey. Perhaps the written word will bear more strength than the spoken! Many rich blessings to you… please continue to write!
Amen. What you’ve done is address the subtle, oftentimes unseeable influences that define a culture without the conscious acknowledgement of that culture. It’s a stretch to ask any culture to even define its own boundaries; to ask a culture to go beyond those boundaries is very “Christ-like” in itself. After all, what Jesus did (whether one takes the story literally or not) is ask his own culture to see beyond itself to something “other.” Those who were ready to see their cultural boundaries loved him. Those who were not killed him. The question has been asked and now we’re all called to answer: Can we see?
I just wanted to leave a comment of support for your well-written and well thought out article. I’m a 32 year old straight farmers daughter who grew up in a conservative family, but fully support gay marriage and all that it entails. Kudos to you for providing a heart-felt argument that touches the core of the very issue rather than displaying anger or provocation. Well done
Bravo! Thank you for your articulate, sensible, and insightful article. I couldn’t have said better.
Wayne, your parable The Lion and the Mouse II: This time, it’s Personal……is the most elegant existential relevant metaphor for the *full inclusion* of our lesbian & gay sisters & brothers, in society in general, and in Christian church communities, in particular, (including ordination) since they are grounded in the life, teachings and death of Jesus of Nazareth, who *welcomed all* to his band of disciples/followers, and is reputed to have said: “In everything *do* to others as you would have them *do* to you: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12/NRSV)
You are a powerful/wonderful word-smith Wayne. Among many awesome insightful relevant parabolic/allegorical interchanges, my favorite if forced to chose, is……
Mouse: “I thought it was the Kingdom’s Ball.”
Lion: “Yes, and *I’m* the King! The party’s *mind!* The castle’s *mind!* The kingdom is *mine!* Everything is *mine.*”
Perhaps your most impressive personal maturation point is coming to the point in your life journey of “admitting that other people’s real lives were more important than mere beliefs.”
Your moving fable of The Lion and the Mouse II: This time, it’s Personal…..brings to mind a portion of Leo Tolstoy’s “Reply To Edict Of Excommunication” (especially his quote of Samuel Taylor Coleridge):
“I do not believe my faith to be the one indubitable truth for all time, but I see no other that is plainer, clearer, or answers better, leaving room for unknown mystery, to all the demands of my reason and my heart; should I find such a one I shall at once accept it…But I can no more return to that from which with such suffering I have escaped, than a flying bird can re-enter the egg shell from which it has emerged. ‘He who begins by loving Christianity (or any other faith tradition, I might add/rareeves) better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself (i.e. the Lion) and his own peace, better than all’, said Coleridge.”
By the way, Wayne, this thread of comments, by & large, is awesome! Thanks again for sharing your creative genius. Hopefully it will be widely shared.
Rod in the City of Roses aka Portland, OR.
The solution is simple… In America, marriages and civil unions are already distinct (though they often overlap). Religious institutions are not prohibited from performing marital union ceremonies for any particular couple consisting of consenting adult human beings, nor are they required to. The state does not tell religious bodies what they can’t or must do in regard to marriage, nor should they. So regarding religious marriage ceremonies, the solution is already practiced. Some groups will marry gay couples, others won’t, and the government should continue to keep out of religion.
The other half of that equation is civil unions… The government already performs and recognized legally binding civil unions. The government does not currently verify the presence or absence or nature of the sexual relations of any two people seeking a civil union, nor does it require any particular religious affiliation or ceremony. Many couples don’t even have a sexual relationship, for a variety of reasons, and many couples have no religious context to their relationship, yet their partnership is no less legal. After all, it’s not the role of the state to validate our individual religious or sexual affiliation or expression (with the “no-brainer” exception of cases where such expression violates the rights of our fellow citizens, e.g. pedophilia or human sacrifice).
So keep the government out of the church. Get the church out of the state. Allow churches that wish to discriminate to continue doing so. Allow churches that wish to embrace people equally to continue doing so. And apply civil union requirements and benefits equally, ensuring equal protection for all. Then we all sing Kumbayah and Y.M.C.A. or whatever we so choose, individually and collectively!
Why would paying $30- so some papers be files make you more able to do something you can do for free now? Then having to pay hundreds to lawyers to undo something you can undo for free now make you more free?
END GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HETERO AND HOMO MARRIAGE. IT’S A TAX NOT FREEDOM!
That was absolutely outstanding! So well written, so clear, so logical! I plan to keep it handy to read often and hopefully curb those supremacist tenancies we all have. You are correct, we all have them in at least one form. The key is to not allow them to cloud our judgement or infringe on others’ values and rights. I hope the narrow minded take the time to read this and try to actually understand it. You explained it very well. Bravo!
i suppose in the South this fine article had to have a “Christian” foundation, but you don’t have to be “a believer” to appreciate the base merit of this fine article
It needs to be said that every culture is subject to its own biases and limitations, even biblical cultures of 4,000 years ago. For over 50 years I have been a student of scripture and know a little something about exegeting both Hebrew and Greek texts. When in seminary, it was drilled into me that a text taken out of context is pretext. I have seen this to be especially so regarding the six or so texts related to homosexual behavior (and it is doubtful that more than two really are). Yet, even the Leviticus texts which speak specifically of a man lying with another man being an abomination and deserving to be put to death have been woefully taken out of their cultural context. Thus, the cultural upbringing of many in today’s society has caused them to interpret those texts according to their own cultural bias and limited knowledge. In order to do such texts justice, we have to consider the limited knowledge of ancient peoples regarding the human reproductive process. Living in an agrarian society, they assumed that human life came forth much like life sprouted forth from the ground and that, like the ground, the woman’s body served the same purpose as when planting a seed; that is, as a repository for the semen (which literally means seed) to develop, grow, and eventually pop out of the her body as a seed does from the ground. Thus, it was believed that human life was in the male seed. They had no knowledge, much less an awareness of the female egg as they did the male semen (note that there is not one single text referring to lesbianism because it was a non-issue). Therefore, for the male to spill intentionally his seed for non-reproductive reasons was tantamount to the destruction of a potential human life, and that was what was abominable. If anything, then, the Leviticus text, with the understanding they had of the reproductive process, would apply just as well to masturbation. Yet, our society as gotten beyond condemning that practice which, I suspect, is a practice even among many conservative Christians. I look at this argument in much the same way as I do other arguments that have been disspelled by scientific discovery, such as, the earth is flat, or the earth is the center of the universe, or we live in a three storied universe, or left handed people must be trained to be right handed, etc., etc.. I have no issue with a person being homosexual for that is the sexual being he or she is. I have no issue with a sexual relationship between two homosexuals, for while it is not a normal type of relationship for me to engage in, it is for them. Consequently, I have no issue same sex civil unions or marriages. I do, however, have an issue with anyone who would superimpose his or her contemporary cultural understanding of human behavior on to a biblical text out of total disregard for or lack of knowledge of the cultural understanding of the time in which it was written.
Very well written and argued. I’m hopeful that thoughtful (and loving!) words like this will sway some hearts.
I am not gay. Nor am I a minority. So, I can only imagine what is must be like to have to hide or deny or defend who and what you ARE, and what God made you to be. Bigotry in any form is shameful. (not to mention a waste of human energy and potential that could be much better spent solving an actual problem such as…oh, I don’t know-maybe world hunger.)
But bigotry is most shameful and offensive to me when justified by people professing to be following the teachings of Christ or any other religious leader.
This article is amazingly well thought out and extremely well said. It should be required reading. For everyone. Or at least for everyone who claims to be a human being capable of real thought!
Rebecca Waggoner
You may use my name.
Beautiful, outstanding piece of writing.
But one other thing, Christians complaining about being persicuted for their beliefs by the secular world are tragically unchristian. The bible commands to rejoice when blessed with being reviled for the name of Christ. Christians fail to do this ALL THE TIME! They, in fact, often do the exact opposite.
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU!
Now I have ONE LINK that I can give out so that “those who don’t understand” might actually, well, understand! I’ve glanced through the comments, and others have expressed my opinion of your piece much better than I could, so I will let them stand for me.
I will particularly share this on the Unfundamental Christians page on FB, then anywhere else I think it appropriate. Between you and Matthew Vines (also on FB), you two have made my week!
Beautifully written!
Once upon a time, I didn’t think too much about marriage equity. After all, I am not gay. This is not my problem. This is not my fight.
I did not choose my sexual orientation; I just lucked out in being part of the 98% of humanity that is wired to be heterosexual. And that luck has saved me a world of grief because I have never had to hide who I am from my family, friends, and church. One day it occured to me that since I did not get to choose my sexual orientatin, other people probably don’t get to choose theirs, either. I know gay people. There are gay people in my extended family and network of friends.
Marriage is not just a religious institution; it is a social conract that allows a person to choose who their next of kin is, who will be able to visit them if they lay dying in a hospital, who will inherit what they leave behind when they die, who they can add to their health benefits at work. It is a basic human right. I am human. And is a fellow human being is being denied a basic human right, then my own rights are not gauranteed or safe either.
If a church does not want to officiate a wedding for a same sexed couple, I support their right not to do that. But a court should not have the right to refuse the right to make this social contract between one pair of otherwise equel consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex when it would grant the same rights to a couple of the opposite sex.
Because of our shared humanity, this is my fight as well as yours. If one of us is in chains, then none of us are free.If one of us is denied our basic rights, then we all are.
Mr. Self: I found this to be well-reasoned, well-presented argument except for what seems to me to be a blatant hypocrisy in the overall message: To slightly paraphrase your own text, you demonstrate a “sense of comfort with yourself as an appropriate judge of (others’) choices, ideas, or behaviors.” Is not your conclusion that the persons to whom you have addressed this are “supremacists” demonstrative of supremacist mindset on your part? It certainly implies that you feel a sense of moral and/or intellectual supremacy over them.
Absurd. Critiquing a person’s ideas is not at all identical to believing oneself innately superior to them. If you think it is, then you should get that looked at.
You went well beyond critiquing ideas into judging the person. Labeling someone as “supremacist” is absolutely judgemental. Until we can all get beyond heated rhetoric and vitriol and respect each other’s right to be who we are and to believe as we believe we will never be able to get down to the business of calmly and intelligently negotiating the compromise that is best for our society as a whole. That’s what it’s ultimately about – what’s it’s been about since the first two hunter-gatherer’s decided to team up for their mutual benefit. Once our society (or at least the majority of it) decides that gay marriage is in it’s own best interest then it will happen. But not until then. Accusations and name-calling do not advance that timeline. If anything, they delay it by putting opponents on the defensive.
Amazing, how this works. I actually didn’t label anyone a supremacist. Go back and read more carefully. The fact that you think I did really says a lot about the rhetorical funhouse in which these debates occur. Thanks for being a great example of that.
This post is so applicable to so many issues in our society. Thank you. It is helping me rethink some of my “supremacist” views that aren’t remotely related to marriage equality (something I support wholeheartedly).
One of the best connections I’ve seen lately was by someone who read the bible, all those parts about sodom and Gomorrah, all those parts happily quoted as God hating gays…and pointed out that God hates rape. God doesn’t like Angels being raped, women being raped, men being raped. Rape pisses god off. God encouraged people, over and over again to love one another and to care for one another.
God didn’t hate the sodomites for sex, he was angry because they were using sex for hate crimes. For rape.
I don’t know, it’s a really interesting way to take a step back and see the same stories in a whole new light for me. And it’s really helped me to understand the teachings better.
[...] “Let’s be done with Chick-Fil-A already,” but if you have a little time, read this post. It’s seriously the smartest thing I’ve read on the topic. It’s both Christian [...]
Wayne, what a beautifully written article! Thank you for the wonderful parable, and for breaking things down so clearly. Those who prefer to stay ignorant, will, but hopefully, some will see their own hypocrisy for what it is, and change their habits. As someone who was raised a Christian in a very sexist and supremacist environment, it took me a while to discover the truth and make the transition to someone who strives to be accepting and compassionate. Thank you for admitting to your struggles. It’s not a bad thing to be wrong; rather, it’s bad to persist in willful ignorance, instead of embracing compassion and kindness. Too many people choose to disregard the true meaning of Jesus’s message. Christianity is about compassion and love, not judgment.
[...] http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=369 Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
This post is all the words that have been running around my mind for the past few weeks, but you’ve put them together in such an easy-to-understand way. The only problem with the article is that the people who need to read it probably won’t.
But thanks for writing and posting it.
Wayne, I think this is an excellent response, especially to those, like Bristol Palin, who don’t understand the difference between our existence and theirs. This is something I posted on FB a couple of weeks ago during the CFA debate:
This is for everyone who STILL doesn’t understand why I’m so adamant about boycotting CFA.
I’ve been involved in protests and demonstrations since I was in college, back in the 80s. Recently, I’ve participated in the protests and boycott against Chick-fil-A for reasons that everyone knows, unless he or she has been living under a rock for the past month. Now I’ve reached my saturation point with the people who still don’t get what this is about.
This is not just about free speech and boycotts. It is about hatred and discrimination. You see, most of you live in a world where you take your rights for granted. No one has ever threatened you because of who you are. You don’t live in fear of being attacked, beaten, or murdered because of something that is inherent to your being. You don’t have to think twice about telling your family, friends, co-workers, employers, neighbors, or landlords about the person you love for fear of being ostracized, fired, or denied a job or housing. You’re not concerned about someone taking away your children, denying you the ability to adopt a child, or calling you an unfit parent. You aren’t afraid that the government will refuse you the right to remain in this country with your spouse if you’re foreign-born. You don’t have to think about who will make decisions for you if you become seriously ill and are hospitalized. You don’t have to worry about your spouse being barred from your funeral, denied your pension, or evicted from your home if you die. I do. I have for 30 years. And it’s all because I am gay. Not because of my character, morals, ethics, intelligence, job qualifications, financial status, education, or personality. Just because I am gay.
Yes, Dan Cathy — and everyone else — has the right to his own opinions and beliefs. He has the right to express them. He has the right to donate his money wherever he sees fit. But having the right doesn’t make it right. The groups he donates to are active advocates for harm and violence. They encourage so-called “conversion therapy,” which is as psychologically damaging as any medieval torture. They support criminalization of same-sex activity. They endorse the policies of other nations — such as Uganda — in killing LGBT people. Yes, KILLING. There are places in the world that I cannot travel, because were they to find out I was gay, I’d be castrated, imprisoned, or killed. You do not know what it’s like to have to worry about such things. I do. In this boat of life, as it were, you’re in first class, while I’m in steerage, at least as far as civil rights are concerned. I know many of you mean well when you urge peace and “just getting along.” But what you don’t understand is that this isn’t about a chicken sandwich. It isn’t about free speech. It is about the fact that this man and his company — and so many others, including every single person who patronized that company yesterday — support the denial of rights — life, liberty, and happiness — to an entire group of people, of which I am one. And I am fucking fed up with it.
I don’t try to deny anyone — ANYONE — their rights. I will speak up for and fight alongside anyone whose equality is denied, whether I personally agree with them or not — because I believe in justice. I certainly don’t advocate harming or killing anyone. So why the hell should I have to be patient with and tolerant of anyone who tries to do it to me?
I sent your work above to someone who until recently was a close friend, until the whole Chick-fil-A issue showed me her true colors. I asked her to read your article, and I had read all of her Christian (rantings) emails she had sent me. I only wanted her to see anyone view…and this is what I got back:
Hey, there —
I read this article in its entirety yesterday. I appreciate you reaching out, but nothing you can send me will get me to change my mind. I always did see the other side of the issue. It’s not that. Homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simple. And I cannot uphold and endorse and support sin. It says so a dozen times in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God. No true Christian who prays and reads the Bible and repents and sanctifies him/herself in Christ would be a LGBT supporter. As one of God’s children, I always, always have to stand with His word — especially when up against a nation’s rights, or society’s rights, or specific people’s rights. Nations and societies and people are temporary. God is eternal.
I’m sorry. I miss you, and don’t know why you had to cut me off so drastically. I am the exact same person with the exact same beliefs as I was two months ago in Anaheim, and all the way back since you and I began chatting when you got hired in at LearningExpress. I don’t require you to become a devout conservative Christian to be my friend. Unfortunately, if you require me to be a gay rights supporter to be yours, I’m sadly going to have to walk away.
The interesting thing, is I never wanted to change her mind. I simply wanted her to see a different side of the issue, which I believe she is simply unable to see. To me, what she wrote is no different than the SS guy who lived next to a Jew who he considered his friend, yet sill believed he must be put to death simply because he is a Jew. Perhaps when Christians say how persecuted they are, they really need to look inside, because the above truly shows that this person is not a Christian, but simply a hater, unable to admit her own fears and hates. Yes I am very upset that someone I loved is no longer in my life, but the above shows me that she never gave a rats ass about me at all.
You teach well. Although at my age I have been exposed to most of the individual points you make – in shards and pieces, you bring it all together so well. Be assured, I will study and restudy your lessons. I will never be too old or set in my ways to learn. Thank you so very much.
Such simple, clear, conscientious writing can only come from someone who truly wishes to understand others and be understood, and shows immense love for humanity. Bravo! Thanks for finding the right words.
Love will conquer all. Thank you for such a lovingly expressed message. We are all one and we owe it to ourselves to teach one another what we know to be true in our experience. Remember, that all we have to go on is our personal experience and the experience of ever other (living and dead) human being. Let’s share what we’ve gotten and make a peaceful World.
I think this is great and right on as far as your critique of the idea that standing up for LGBT rights is oppression. That’s not new or unique to LGBT rights, as you probably know. During the civil rights movement, and to some extent today, many people who did (or do) not think of themselves as racist, and to paraphrase you, have Black people they call friends in some circumstances, said that moving against racist institutions was depriving them of their culture and way of life. As you know, versions of this come up today.
This is why I think one sentence you wrote was more important than any other: “other people’s real lives were more important than my mere beliefs.” Privileged people tend to forget that way too often (I have on more than be occasion). This, I think, is the basis for any politics worth a damn. Most people would say they believe that, but it is forgotten far too often..
As a writer and fellow storyteller – albeit one who identifies neither as gay nor as Christian as such (as in, no accepted dogma and I don’t feel obliged to hang out in a church eveyr sunday or believe everything that a priest says is true) – may I take a moment to applaud this? Beautifully framed.
I appreciate this essay on so many levels. Thank you.
[...] Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin | Owldolatrous. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Posted in Current Affairs, Identity Politics, Politics and tagged Chick-fil-A, Hegemony, heterosexism, homophobia, Marginalization, supremacy [...]
[...] Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin | Owldolatrous. [...]
[...] try to remember that most of the people who are against it aren’t bad people. Articles like this help. But at the same time, it’s hard. I know that there is a world of difference between [...]
I found a link to this article on FB and joined in a discussion on it… I am re-posting my FB posting here…
Wayne has missed the mark… and by miles as most LGBT usually do…
Before I proceed let me state the following… I CAN NOT GET OR BE MARRIED IN THE US… What I define as marriage has been a felony in the US sense 1862, upheld by the SCOTUS in 1878 and is illegal in ALL 50 states. If I were to get married outside of the US and return I would be locked up for several felonies. Care to complain to me about oppression?
I have no religious basis, I am a Atheist… I am not anti religion I support anyone’s right to believe or observe as they wish.
I do not support gay or straight marriage… I simply support the natural law right for every person to joint into union as they see fit… In other words… DROP THE “GAY” or “HETEROSEXUALITY” division.
The correct thinking is to question why marriage is being seen and promoted as a entitlement at all…
When you give special entitlements to married (any type of group) you are not only giving them special privileged (tax, insurance and otherwise) you are not only doing a injustice to the types sought to be excluded but you are promoting even further division between married “types” of persons but creating an exclusion between single persons as well. You are rewarding and or penalizing ALL…. not just DIVIDED GROUPS.
What everyone misses in this entire pro con debate is this… marriage is a civil union, a private affair between private parties. To promote the idea of any type of government involvement, benefit or authority over marriage is the flaw to begin with. When you registered a marriage you are taxed (the beginning of the control problem), when you divorce you are in a civil court… It is a CIVIL matter… a private matter between parties… only ignorance of law says otherwise.
What is missed is that the US system of law and government was set up to protect the minority… You can not do this by promoting “gay marriage” and you can not do this by promoting “stragith marriage”. You are only promoting division and the LBGT community has 100% shot themselves in the foot as have many other “groups” for taking the path that they have.
The type of marriage is not what should be questioned… What should be asked is why the government has injected its self into trying to control private civil unions between its citizens within a country that is supposed to be “free? By what constitutional authority? By what law? and why are we so naive to believe they have this divine right to inject themselves into a private union!
I am always amazed at the supposed “minority’s” in this country… Its a never ending cycle of self loathing division that perpetuates the very problem they seem to be seeking to correct. This is a taught behavior of course, it works well for keeping the masses at bay and the ones that taught you to do this are very grateful that you make their jobs so easy by allowing you to be exploited… AND YOU ARE EXPLOITED… but few are smart enough to see that.
There are no gay rights… black rights… Latin rights… christian rights… white rights… there is a BILL OF RIGHTS which protects ALL AMERICANS the same…. If your rights are being infringed… Keep the focus on your rights as an american… not your damn imaginary rights as special little class of “whatever”. Its the fastest way to get divided… exploited… and pitted against another in division.
Progressive Rules For Diversification
1. Define classes
2. Divide into classes.
3. Creatively instigate per-class ideological propagation .
4. Blame each class for the other.
5. Claim ignorance of motive.
Va-La… your diversified!
Stop being a sucker and go after the ones WRITING THESE LAWS for the RIGHT reasons, not your own personal agenda… suddenly we’ll find some unity and change.
The “christian conservative” group which the author wishes to demonize and suggest holds so much power is a MINORITY in this country.
Married parties are now a “minority” in this country, “single” is not the new “majority”.
Stop being egged on by Edward Bernays type political control propaganda and look to the law. This is about liberty and common law and when you do not support and defend the liberty of all then you are next in line for loosing your own and often times at your OWN doing. The reason LGBT marriage keeps loosing in the courts is because they are too busy making the wrong arguments about rights which do not exist!
Excellent! Bravo!
Really amazing post. Will be sharing!
[...] http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=369 Share this: Category: General Annoyances [...]
Most elegantly-written, and lucidly-argued; thank you. Martin Luther King, Jr. also argued that those who saw injustice and failed to act are not very good Christians. I say self-professed Christians ought to read this thoughtful argument.
Incidentally– I am a pianist and conductor who wishes you good luck on your musical! I am sorry to say I never heard of that tragic bias killing in 1973. It sounds like terrific fodder for a new musical! Best of luck!
Sincerely,
Lloyd Arriola
Another great message. Thank you for your thoughtful and patient message. We keep moving forward, non-religious and other, alike.
What a lovely article
Thank you for such a thoughtful explanation as it’s clear that you did not just fire off an opinion piece; instead you did exactly what Jesus would’ve done, you’ve “met them where they are”, not where you wish they were. I am a 43 yr old hetrosexual mother of a 17 yr old hetrosexual son and after my marriage of 19 yrs & 7 months was blown apart by numerous HETROSEXUAL infidelities it’s become absolutely hilarious to me when I hear someone against homosexual marriage saying “it will be the unraveling of this nations family unit as we currently know it” because I can assure you, there were exactly ZERO homosexuals involved in the demise of my hetrosexual marriage so from where I stand, it’s those restless hetro’s who are directly responisible for the “unraveling of this nations family unit as we currently know it”!!! God bless you and those in your life 
You have written a beautiful fable about supremacy in general. I think everyone winds up with a little bit of [insert-type-of-person-one-is] supremacy just due to the selfishness of childhood and adolescence, and a major step towards adulthood is discarding those attitudes. Personally, I know myself to be something of an Atheist Supremacist. I don’t hate people who are religious, I just think they’re all a little bit brainwashed. If everyone could admit to themselves their own attitudes, maybe we could make a start on tolerating people with different ones.
[...] get ridiculed for being for “traditional marriage” while not, outright, hating gays.: · Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin. In my opinion, like the race debate, this stems from a privilege the Majority has and its [...]
Wayne, well-written piece. I think you make some valid points and you do so respectfully, which is rare to see in “hot button” social debates such as this. Thus, you seem the perfect person for me to ask a burning question I’ve always had regarding the main argument of the gay rights movement, and the basis for the one you make here:
How is this at all about “equality”?
Consider: 10% of the world is engaged in cousin marriages, and I see no reason it should be different for human beings living on this landmass (the U.S.) …yet cousin marriages are illegal in most of the US and also certainly stigmatized, much like homosexuality has been. 10% is at least comparable to the U.S. GLBT population, possibly larger. Also as the NYT article points out, the fallback excuse for marginalizing cousin marriage – increased birth defects – is grossly exaggerated.
So: If the goal is “equality,” why is legalization of cousin marriage completely excluded from this “rights” movement?
A similar reasonable (IMHO) argument could be made for polygamy: If the goal is truly “equality,” why are those who define “loving union” as >2 consenting adults also completely excluded from this movement?
I’m fully in favor of “equality” for gays (though ideally I think government would step out of the marriage business entirely and simply recognize civil unions for everyone), but the “equality” argument has always seemed phony to me, an excuse to falsely assume moral high ground against those who disagree. Here’s the thing: when you strip that away, suddenly it’s all just a matter of opinion – how you and I think marriage should be defined/restricted – and one opinion is really no more “right” than another.
The GLBT movement disagrees with the “traditional marriage” crowd on a single restriction – that of gender heterogeneity – but is to all outward appearances fine with / in agreement on the rest (minimum age, no cousin marriages, no polygamy, etc.) That makes practical sense – GLBT would like to be “let in to the party,” to go with your analogy- but it’s certainly not a battle for equality then… and barring condescending / untruthful remarks, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Bristol Palin, WinShape, or anyone else stating that they believe this one restriction should remain in place, nor do I see it as an expression of supremacy etc. any more than it’s an expression of supremacy for you and others to say (or imply via action) “we should change marriage law to include gays, but continue to exclude cousins and polygamists.”
Like I said, I personally am fully in support of extending marriage rights to gays, I just find the “equality” argument to be disingenuous. I’d be very interested to hear your opinion here.
You sling around some very scary words and ideas with aplomb. An interesting approach.
We’ve attempted to simplify the arguments and raise awareness as well; particularly here in Washington State as we go to vote on the matter this Fall.
godluvseveryone.com
I already posted a comment that for over a week is awaiting moderation. What is the’hang up’? Above is my name & email address. Rod in the City of Roses aka Portland, OR.
I already posted a comment that has been awaiting moderation for overa week. What is the hang up? I previously provided my name & email address.
[...] [5] http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=369 [...]
Hey Wayne,
I honestly appreciate your effort to be understanding and evenhanded. I also think, though, that you have engaged in what you would call supremacist thinking and the overall feeling I get from the article is locked into a “two wrongs make a right” mentality.
To paraphrase your writing:
Supremacy is what allows you to think your clear argument should outweigh others’ heartfelt beliefs, or that your impassioned plea should be favored over others’ firmly-held opinions.
You seem to think your way of looking at the world is better than their way of looking at the world. Your belittling response to Dave Petry notwithstanding, there is a great deal of evidence indicating that peoples’ worldviews are intimately connected to their identities and that these are not matters of conscious choice any more than orientation (see Pinker, Haidt, and many others).
You say you understand that your commenter feels “bashed” but then go on to point out “LGBT people get actually, literally bashed, sometimes to death.” Do think he feels dismissed by this? I know I would. The fact that others have suffered worse does not alleviate or eliminate his suffering, and your comparison seems designed to make his complaint seem unworthy. Gay people in Africa face vastly greater persecution than in America, does that mean that gay people here should count their blessings instead of complaining?
You describe your own friendships as “I even had African-American friends.” But when you talk about Bristol Palin you say, “She probably even has LGBT people she calls friends.” Is this because you can’t imagine that she has LGBT people who actually ARE friends? Why does she not get the same level of humanity you give yourself here?
The comment you post as a positive example includes the phrase “I live in the South, and the majority of folks are very homophobic.” If he had said, “I work with a lot of blacks, and the majority of them are lazy.” or “I go to school with a lot of gay people and the majority of them are promiscuous.” Would you have highlighted his posting in the same light? Or is it for some reason OK to make biased statements about Southerners?
There are many other examples I could point to in your writing.
Again, I really do appreciate your effort to be evenhanded and you have come much farther than any other blogger I’ve read on these topics. I am writing this in the hope of showing you there is still further that you might go.
At your own parties or on your own blog, where you are the lion, how many mice (anti-gay activists, fundamentalist Christians, etc) do you invite and how do you treat them. When you responded to Dave Petry by saying, “Absurd. Critiquing a person’s ideas is not at all identical to believing oneself innately superior to them. If you think it is, then you should get that looked at.” wasn’t that a lot like flicking him out the window. It’s your blog/party and you get to decide how you treat people, but it seems to undermine your point a bit.
Take care,
Charlie
Very eloquently explained — surprisingly, without all the expected rhetoric. Thank you from a hetero who supports you and believes our modern Bible translations are wrong to begin with.
I understand where you are going with this, and agree. I think the problem is simple stereotyping. If you see me wearing a cross or with a fish on my car, your first thought might be that I’m a homophobe who opposes gay marriage. I suppose that’s understandable given the hate that has come from some self-righteous persons of faith. The truth of the matter is that we need to quit making blanket statements about groups of people because all groups are made of sub-groups until you get down to individuals.
I’ve heard the arguments about gay sex being a sin, and I’ve heard the arguments about gay sex not being a sin. For me, I don’t know, and I don’t care, that’s for God to sort out. I believe God made each of us in His image, but he did not make us perfect. However, even in our imperfection and brokenness, I believe God loves each one of us. He knows our hearts, He knows every fiber of our being, He knows every dirty little secret we carry; yet he loves us. He knows why we are the way we are, why we love the ones we love, why some people just rub us the wrong way; yet he loves us.
I took offense to a friend who was slinging the term “Bible-thumper” around in his Facebook posts. I believe the Bible speaks truth, so I suppose that makes me a Bible-thumper. But that does not mean I am anti-LGBT by any means. At the end of the day, I’m a sinner, you’re a sinner and sin is sin.
Through the early 60′s it was illegal for black people to ride in the front of the city busses. It was illegal for black people to use certain doors, drink from certain water fountains, swim in “white” swimming pools. It was also illegal for black people to marry. This was true in most southern states until 1967.
I think I was in 7th grade before I even knew there were gay people and even then, it was only in giggled whispers. in the early 1980′s I met the first man I had ever known who was openly gay; I thought he was wonderful! I have since come to know many LGBT men and women, and you know what, they’re people just like me.
My point is that LGBT equality is relatively new idea. It’s going to take time for true equality to happen. I just hope it happens sooner than later. Meanwhile, I wish we could dispense with the name-calling and stereotyping.
I thought that this was a very cool and groovy way of telling this story. Good work!
I am what the media would call a conservative christian. Though I do believe homosexual relationships are immoral so is fornication. I am not a virgin nor am i married so I believe that I am no different then any person who is a sinner. All sin is equal (except blasphemy making some of the super conservatives worse sinners then the ones they condemn). I also believe that the only marriage rights that comes from the Bible is that right to have sex [which i have stated before is long gone (myself included)] so marriage right given by the government should be equal to all regardless of sexual orientation ( Yes I am a conservative christian who is for gay marriage) The nation was not founded by Christianity so it cannot be judge merely by just Christianity. Plus if we want to go by the Bible then for gay marriage to be illegal then adultery should also be illegal (see how many politicians sign off to that) I believe that we give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, meaning marriage rights given by the government should be to all its citizens. I think that we can not let one worldviews system control everything this country’s does even though I think that worldview to be the correct view. You will also note that I have said “I believe” because this is my belief. I believe it to be right and their is very little anyone can do to change that, but I will not say the country should be run based off of my believe. If that is so then why can the country not be based off of the KKK’s belief or Nazis belief’s. So do I think homosexuality is moral no. Should they get the rights the Constitution guarantee yes. For we are all saved by His Grace through Christ Jesus nothing more nothing less.And Grace supersedes the Law
I’m sure we’d disagree on a lot of things, but it’s nice that people can still find common ground now and then, especially in this campaign season. Thanks.
[...] Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin: Cited in the Distress of the Privileged piece, and also containing a brilliant analogy that explains why not including the underprivileged is so hurtful and damaging: [...]
[...] This is a must-read post. It’s a long one, but trust me, it’s worth it. Blogger, playwright, and composer Wayne Self weighed in on the Chick-fil-A controversy late last month and his post went viral, generating over a million views. It also generated a lot of letters from conservative, anti-LGBT Christians complaining that they felt silenced, marginalized, and persecuted by society for holding anti-equality religious beliefs. Self’s brilliant response expands on Aesop’s fable of the lion and the mouse and uses it to explain how hollow these claims really are: The way I see it, in terms of power in this country, conservative Christians are the Lion; we LGBT folks are the Mouse. [...]
[...] views and (at last count) 1595 comments, including some push-back from conservative Christians. Self’s follow-up responded to one commenter who wrote that he supported Chick-fil-A as [a] company with a founder [...]
[...] (na última contagem) 1595 comentários, incluindo algumas ofensivas de cristãos conservadores. O follow-up de Self respondeu a um comentarista que escreveu que apoiava o Chick-fil-A [...]