When the issue of gay marriage was brought up during the Miss USA beauty pageant it seemed inevitable that someone was going to be offended. Miss California’s response that her beliefs were in line with a traditional definition of marriage brought a series of applause and boos from the crowd. Of course, when this issue is broached it is usually couched in an either/or framework. That is, whether or not one supports gay marriage usually is determined by his or her definition of marriage; one either believes marriage should be between a man and a woman or one supports the marriage between same-sex couples. Either response predictably upsets someone holding the other position which results in the tension experienced at the Miss USA pageant. Implicit in Miss California's response, indeed, with similar responses is the lack of support for gay rights. I find this implication curious. Of course, the idea that stating positional beliefs can alienate those who hold opposing stances is not an unusual concept. However, in the issue of same-sex marriage, how one defines marriage seems to be the factor that determines one's support for gay rights. This, I feel, is unfair. Primarily, the notion that one’s definition of marriage is necessarily indicative of their support (or lack thereof) toward gay rights is erroneous. When the institution of marriage is legislated it becomes understood in terms of both privilege and right. Marriage is not the right of all citizens. The mentally impaired do not have the right to marry, for example. Marriage is a privilege that not all citizens are able to engage in (pardon the pun). Moreover, there is not the blanket freedom for hetero-couples to marry. For example, a brother and sister cannot legally marry, nor could first cousins, a father and daughter, and so on. Marriage as a privilege is becoming more evident. Given the nature of legislated marriage it is clear that marriage is limited to the status quo: the non-related hetero couple. The notion that one’s definition of marriage determines their support of gay rights is thus unfair. It seems the argument that same-sex couples seek the same rights [read: to marry] as hetero couples should be amended to accommodate the privilege of marriage.
Another reason one’s definition of marriage should not be indicative of their support for gay rights is that citizen rights do not originate in legislation. Individual rights are considered self-evident in the constitution and are not emergent from it. If one were to desire the legislated benefits of marriage for all couples, the fight should not originate from the definition of marriage. Instead, the position should be located in the inherent rights of all human beings. Since the definition of marriage is a state and not a federal issue, citizens have the right to amend, appeal, and rewrite state constitutions, as we have witnessed in Prop 8. One can argue for rights of all humans and still hold to the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman insofar as he or she has the freedom to do so. Of course, there does seem to be an inconsistency here. If one’s definition of marriage is primarily indicative of one’s stance on gay rights then it follows that marriage will have to be defined as a right. Since this is not the case, as I argued above, and one believes the benefits of marriage should be available to all citizens, the position most appropriate here is to claim that all citizens should have access to the same benefits. This argument is not necessarily located within legislation on marriage, and so the fight for same-sex marriage will have to be done so at the state and individual level. In the meantime, the fight for equal benefits can be taken up wherever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
To turn the question around, why would a person find it important to prevent two women or two men from legally marrying each other, for no reason other than their genders, if they did not have a problem with lesbian, bi or gay people? You appear to imply that loving someone of your own sex is comparable to both mental impairment severe enough to prevent a person from entering into legal contracts and various forms of incest. This sort of comparison implies that lesbian, bi, and gay people are either seriously deficient compared to heterosexuals, in danger of producing children with genetic problems, and/or morally reprehensible. While it would be possible to support some form of rights for people one considers inferior or immoral, perhaps as the best option for poor unfortunate souls who are incapable of what is better, it would be unreasonable to then expect those one condescends to as deficient to humbly thank one for deigning to aid such unworthy and lesser beings as themselves.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that this is one reason why those who do not support same-sex marriage are generally considered to also not support gay rights. The arguements for restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples inevitably seem to imply that heterosexuals are superior and therefore deserving of special privileges (or rights) that can justly be denied to others. One's stance on same-sex marriage may not be indicative of one's stance on gay rights, but it appears to be a good indicator of one's stance on lesbian, bi and gay people.
I agree with Jen. Within the church, there are those who consider being gay a sin. That assumes that one believes that being gay is an option, for sin is something that is freely chosen. Those of us within the church who support gay marriage generally believe that a gay person is born gay, that it isn't a choice. I find it interesting that when various Republican office holders are caught in gay activities, they talk about those activities in terms of "temptation". I believe that if one is not gay, one is not tempted to be gay. if a person is gay, that person is more than tempted, that person simply is what God made. I support gay rights and gay marriage and generally gay anything because I want the gay people in my world to be happy and fulfilled and to have wonderful lives, just as I would want myself to have. I believe that within the gay community there is an army for Christ, an unstoppable force for good. To be married is to have a shot at sanity and to defy loneliness and experience fulfillment in an institution ordained by God.
ReplyDeleteThe way I was brought up and what I believe is that marriage should be only between a man and women. This is the way God intended it to be when he created the world. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;male and female.And God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1;27-28).Therefore recognizing gay marriage either by state or any other institution goes against Gods will.
ReplyDeleteMy major concern if gay marriages where to become legalized, is that it would destroy the image of what a traditional family, consisting of a mother, a father and children . For that reason I think that it is not only about equal rights but about thinking about the long term effects of the psychological change that will happen if children are taught that gay marriages are equal to hetero marriages.
Chalk me up as another bleeding heart. As it stands, your argument seems to be that because marriage falls under the category "privilege" and not "right," one can oppose gay marriage and not be opposed to gay rights. I wonder if this difference misses the overall point, as Jen observes. While one can make arguments opposing incestuous marriage and marriage between mentally handicapped persons (though I would deem them dubious), the opposition to gay marriage seems entirely arbitrary within this framework. Sure, there are subtle shades of meaning differentiating between "homophobia," "anti-gay marriage," and "opposing gay rights," but I'm skeptical that these differences have much practical value.
ReplyDeleteThanks for addressing my argument, Chris. Your comments are spot on, as the saying goes. It seems Miss California’s claim “No offense to anyone out there,” cannot be substantiated. I often require consistency in my personal beliefs and marvel how others fluctuate between obviously conflicting ethical opinions, as I tried to do in the blog post. On a side note, I wonder if there is an ethical system that can accommodate conflicting ethical stances, as in holding to a traditional definition of marriage and supporting gay rights, for example. I feel it should avoid reconciling incompatible positional statements as that would only bring in arguments similar to ones used by anti-religious pluralism positions. But getting back, I still have concerns with the issue I tried to represent in the posting. If we do reject it as dubious then it is reasonable to say that if one supports gay rights then they should support gay marriage. This is not a contentious argument. It does, however, invalidate a position I feel is important: one does not necessarily have to support marriage as an institution in order to support gay rights. For those of us who do not believe marriage is a viable system worth maintaining, and feel personally convicted that people should not get married, or are decidedly anti-marriage for whatever reason, cannot then support gay rights. I’m sure this is a minority position, but when we establish necessary truths we are vulnerable to every argument against it, which can take many forms. So can someone not support marriage in general and still support gay rights?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that being gay is an option, but studies seem inconclusive, but indicate that many who claim that orientation may have either been abused or raped. That being said, I believe that gay people have the right to marriage or civil unions - are these terms interchangeable? Would saying gay people have a right to civil unions make a difference?
ReplyDeleteTo those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and want to deny another's rights because of this particular sin; how do we determine which sins are greater than others? We are all sinners, but for the grace of God we are redeemed.
Families are so diverse and different today: extended family, blended families, family by choice, adopted family, and church family. I'm not so sure people who love one another and have a committed relationships can be blamed for destroying the nuclear family.
I may not agree with another's life style, sexual orientation or religion, but I'm sure God calls me to love "the other", the stranger, the 'least of these' and to love mercy and justice. God loves us unconditionally. How can we do less?
I don't know what to say...I was first more shocked that the judges would actually ask a question like that to miss California...I think that any answer would have caused some criticism.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Jim said, and I would have to agree that just because I'm not gay, doesn't mean I will ever be tempted to be gay.
I wished we did live in a world were human rights were self-evident and not socially emergent. Looking back at all the civil rights marches, and movements for women equality, the United States has never really been a good example of their own constitutional "self-evident" understandings.
As far as the actual topic of this post...I am not hopeful that this conflict will end soon nor will it end in a peaceful manner.
Tony--Yes, a person can not support marriage in general and still support gay rights, as long as the "not support marriage in general" applies for all persons regardless of where they land on the continuum of sexual orientation. I actually know someone I consider a very strong advocate of rights for LGBT persons as exemplified by her speech and actions. We worked together from 1997 - 2003 during which time I got to know her and her family fairly well. She informed me that she did not advocate or embrace marriage as an institution. She saw no need to secure governmental involvement in her very long term committed relationship with her then partner. She definitely considered her partner her husband, but referred to him as her life partner. Interestingly enough, I heard last year that they finally got married. When I heard this shift, I wondered what changed. I figure for two people to make such a shift after 20+ years, something must have changed. Then, I heard she left her job, semi-retired and went into business as an independent part-time consultant. I could be VERY WRONG, but one of the factors in their shift from non-married to married in the eyes of the law might have to do with healthcare benefits, retirement planning, etc. She has some chronic health challenges and always carried her own health insurance. Now as someone self-employed, securing health insurance could be an expensive challenge, especially for someone with compromised health. Now as a married couple, they definitely have protections that they would not necessarily have even in a state that recognizes domestic partners. So, here's a heterosexual couple, supportive of LGBT rights who did not see a need for marriage for themselves or others. But something changed where marriage met some need they had and they had a choice to pursue marriage. Hmmmm . . . now just like my former colleague, here I am in a long term committed relationship with the love of my life. Yet, my partner and I do not have the choice to follow the path of my former colleague and her now husband. We do not have an option to secure the protections for one another that my former colleague had after 20+ years of non-married, yet committed status. Interestingly enough, we support heterosexual as well as LGBT rights each and every day.
ReplyDeleteI have been really hesitant to step into this conversation. My partner of seven years and I got married in that jubilant period between May 15th and November 4th. So this argument is too close to my heart for me to be completely objective. When we did marry in the church, we invited the congregation to the wedding. Every child came with their parents, from age 7 to 18. We celebrated our commitment to one another with the support of our community which was not limited to other gays and lesbians.
ReplyDeleteI see what Tony is saying when he wants to separate what he calls rights from marriage. What people do not seem to get is that having a civil marriage, which is what every couple does by signing and mailing in the license and the fee, even if they have a marriage in the church, rights are conferred on the couple. This civil marriage is not recognized in churches unless there is a religious ceremony. Quite a bit has changed in the last hundred years or so, and one has been that consenting adults who were previously unable to marry, have been given the right, as in interracial couples and marriage between two handicapped people. On a federal level, it is so changing that senior citizens do not marry because they will lose benefits formerly granted them in their previous marriage where a spouse has died.
In nullifying proposition 21, the Supreme court of California agreed that by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it created exclusivity. The religious right is in an uproar, spreading rumors that their children will be corrupted and that it infringes upon their right to be exclusive to those that they deem unacceptable by "forcing them to marry gay people" which could not be farther than the truth.
Unitarian Universalists as a denominations decided to support marriage for gays and lesbians in 1985. By not allowing freedom to marry, basically the right to perform marriages is infringed upon. The tyranny of the majority.
A domestic partnership which is supposed to be the next best thing, is not the same as civil marriage. That is why, in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa(!), and Massachusetts allow marriage between loving couples. Separate and equal never is. By trying to separate "gay rights" from marriage, denies once again full and equal protection under the law.
If Christians can not even agree upon who is in and who is out e.g. salvation, how can they be allowed to impose their will on society as a whole, which is what is the very basis of all of the hateful legislation and rhetoric has been?
Same-sex marriage is a hot topic, isn’t it? It seems to be an unsolved issue right now. However, as I grew up in traditional Christian, I agree with Arsen “that marriage should be only between a man and women. This is the way God intended it to be when he created the world.” Yes, this issue is just “not about equal rights but about thinking about the long term effects of the psychological change.” I believe that family which a couple is the same-sex is not a healthy family (even though a family, man and women is not healthy sometime). In the Gospel, Jesus says, “You are the salt of the earth...You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16). As a Christian, I don’t know how can I become the salt of the earth and the light for the world if I against God’s will regard marriage? John Stott, in the chapter three “Sexuality and Marriage in the Bible,” his book Same-sex partnerships, gives many evident that support marriage between man and woman. He argues by using the teaching of Jesus about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, by repeating parts of Genesis 2. Based on Jesus’ teaching, Stott believes heterosexual gender is a divine creation; heterosexual marriage is a divine institution; heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention. (pp.31-40). In short, to me, everyone is sinners (not only gay or lesbian) before God. But remember what Jesus said to the woman who was caught in adultery? “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:11).
ReplyDeleteI'm a white straight guy. Now that that's out of the way...
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the influence of same-gender marriage on children, the American Psychological Association defines Sexual Orientation as "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior)" (http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31). The APA also writes that "most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality" (ibid). Sexual identity (as I prefer to call it) is not a choice. No one can change their sexual identity. Sexual identity is not a mental illness or psychological condition. Gay and lesbian persons are equally qualified to be parents as persons who are not gay or lesbian.
In the 16th century, servants and day laborers in Bavaria and Austria were not allowed to marry.
In the 17th century, marriage in most western cultures was about “an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse” (Larry R. Peterson, Ph.D. The History of Marriage as an Institution, 1997).
Regulation between interracial marriage was non-existent until 1662 in Virginia. Maryland was the first colony to ban interracial marriage in 1664, and in 1750 all southern colonies had banned interracial marriages plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
From the 1690s through the 1870s, the common way for a man to divorce his wife in small towns in the United Kingdom was for him to put a rope around her neck in a public sale.
In the American colonies (and then the United States until the mid-19th century), married women had no legal standing and were unable to vote or own property.
Finally, according to John Boswell - noted historian and professor at Yale University - found supporting documentation indicating that the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions.
I think the inclusion of same-gender couples in the institution of marriage is the best way to “protect” a rich and meaningful tradition.
Now, what about the Bible's view on sexual identity?
The creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis tells us about creation. It doesn't tell us about loving relationships. In the second chapter, we may argue that there is still a question about loving relationships (indeed see how Adam blames his wife for his own disobedience and then Caine kills Abel!). The instruction to go into the world and multiply is again about creation. None of this is a lesson on how to be in a healthy relationship.
The Matthew 19 narrative is about divorce. To be frank, I stuggle with the concept of divorce - gay or straight! Regardless of the genders of married persons, divorce can wreak havoc on all involved.
So to summarize: (1) homosexuality is not about choice; (2) gay and lesbian persons are equally qualified for parenting as non-gay and -lesbian persons; (3) there is a long tradition of the fight for marriage equality; (4) the Bible's view on homosexuality is ambiguous at best, and that's leaving out examples of loving same-gender relationships that are in the Bible!!
To those who know what God intends:
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a boy in Texas in the 60's is was not at all unusual to hear Christian preachers speak out in favor of racial segregation, saying that God intended that the different races live separately, quoting the Tower of Babel story in scripture. I don't hear anybody say that any more.
There are many traditional families that I know of that involve abuse and neglect. There are also gay, lesbian, and alternative families which I know of that nurture and love. God lives where the love is.
Thanks, Bob, for one of the most concise and best summaries I've read to date.
ReplyDeleteTypically, I have a pretty big capacity to listen and take in the views of others who hold different opinions from me. I've been told that often I'm far too gracious in considering the views of others. That being written, there's something that has come up in this post that I professionally am called to address: the development of a child in the context of family.
From my studies and professional work in the field of infant toddler mental health, I do not have fear for the psychological development of our youth reared in same sex families any more than heterosexual families. Research and literature consistently demonstrate that the most important mediating factor in the overall development of a child is the presence of a committed loving caregiver. In fact, the presence of a committed loving caregiver has such an impact that it can promote the development of a child who has experienced trauma, been exposed to violence, etc and help prevent the onset of post traumatic stress disorder. Longitudinal studies (Emily Werner, Hawaii) have demonstrated that the protective factors of attachment, initiative and self-control help a child overcome or at least offset the impact of significant risk factors that he or she may encounter in life, including poverty. The Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) tool, used nationwide in Head Start programs and other early childhood programs, helps a family and teacher identify the presence and strength of protective factors (specifically attachment, initiative, and self-control). Then, the DECA provides teachers potential ways to strengthen their classroom programs and interventions to help build these protective factors. When a teacher uses this assessment and crafts interventions to build protective factors to support the young child, the child can tremendous gains in development, learning and school readiness even in the face of great risk factors and adversity.
The presence of a primary attachment figure makes the difference in the overall healthy emotional development of a child regardless of that figure's sexual orientation. As a former clinical director of a community based infant toddler mental health clinic who conducted well over 250+ intakes over the span of 5 years, I encountered many different "types" of families--you name the type, I probably encountered it. These families taught me that those caregivers or substitute caregivers who had the capacity to 1) meet the child's physical and emotional needs, 2) understand that the child did not exist to meet the adult's needs, and 3) take in new information on how to support a young child during times of stress and instability contributed significantly to helping the child establish and sustain relationships with others, learn emotional and behavioral regulation, and continue to explore his or her environment and master developmental tasks to the best of his or her cognitive and developmental ability. I had the most concern when a parent or caregiver brought a child in "to get fixed" when in fact, the parent and caregiver presented with significant fractures in his or her emotional development and limited insight into his or her own needs.
I call on adults in the world to not use the rearing of children as an argument for or against the rights of a particular segment of the adolescent and adult population. All of us, regardless of sexual orientation, must keep our eye on what is important--that each child experiences the security and love of a consistent careprovider able to meet the child's emotional, physical, and spiritual needs. We would make significant progress as a society and world, if we committed ourselves to eradicate the greatest significant risk factor and threat to our children and our future: poverty.
Where to begin? A few good issues have been brought up and I am only going to address a couple... I understand that marriage is a privilege and not a right but if we are going to discuss human rights and marriage, why not talk about what should be deemed a human right, rather than what is a human right? I believe that the right to marriage SHOULD be a human right—at least in terms of the law. Personally, if the term “marriage” holds a religious connotation and offends a great number of people, then lets separate the that aspect from the legal aspect and we can slap another name tag on the latter. So long as two people, regardless of gender, are allowed to marry a person of their choice and have the same legal rights and privileges, I do not care if it is called a “marriage.” If the religious right will stand behind that and support that union, regardless of gender, then I am all for it. With that being said, Miss California was asked her opinion on the topic of gay marriage and she should be allowed to voice her opinion. In terms of judging her response, I could really care less what her answer was, what I really care about is her support behind it. I think that everyone judging her for her opinion on the matter is just as harmful and unloving as judging the validity of a homosexual couple.
ReplyDeleteAs far as children are concerned, I take the same stance on homosexual couples parenting as I do on homosexual relationships—if it is a healthy and loving relationship how can it be harmful and how can it be wrong? As Elaine pointed out, children need love. It should not matter where this love comes from. I know plenty of people from broken homes that were raised by a single mother with the support of her mother (the children’s grandmother). That would be two people of the same gender raising a family, and guess what… they raised some great people. This is not to say that every homosexual couple is ready for or apt to raise a family. Just like heterosexual couples, it’s the health of the relationship and the home, not the gender composition within the home, that should determine the ability to raise a family.
First, let me say that marriage,in my opinion, wouldn't fall under the category of human rights because, no one is preventing anyone from having a marriage as it is currently defined. A homosexual person can today, go to the County registrar's office and get a license to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same sex, but they can marry. People self-select out of the option for their own reasons. Many people choose not to marry. But choosing to not participate and not being able to participate are two different things.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I spent part of my weekend with long time family friends who are in a committed same sex union. They have a lovely daughter who is 6. She calls one Poppa and the other Daddy. One day recently, when she was playing and her Poppa was preparing dinner, she said, "You listen to girl music and Daddy listens to boy music." Somewhat shocked, Poppa asked her what she meant. She went on to explain that he listened to Cher, Barbara Striesand and the like, while Daddy listened to Metallica, Miles Davis,and so on. He had nothing to say to her about her observation which was dead on. This 6 year old has found a way to place her two male parents into a female and male role. In their house, one parent is very definitely more "mother" like and the other is very definitely more "father" like. They are clear about who they are and how they run their household. It seems to me that if a 6 year old within an alternative family lifestyle can figure out there is a boy and a girl running the house, all of us adults ought to just allow that there are some things that we don't have control over, but we have to live with the consequences. If you choose to live out the actions of a homosexual life, then there may be things from which you'll be excluded. Please note, I'm not saying anything about one's being. That is between the person and God. Marriage should be in the context of a stable secure environment embodied by a mature male, and a mature female...this is best practice and this is what the state ought to promote and support. Even a 6 year old can see that.
Tony, thanks for your post,
ReplyDeleteBasically I am saying that You can support gay marriage and not support the marriage. It seems to me the rights you support. What I think I am saying is that when the prop passed the dignity of us all was damaged. We let one another down. No one deserves the loss of their basic right to make choices about their life choices.
We all need to have an opportunity to decide about when and where they want to build family with/ community with . The choice of marriage is a difficult one. No matter who you make community with they will let you down. They are the best of and the worst of so try and prepare for it the best possible.
It is community you are working to build. So it is up to you how you chose to do take this step. Everyone deserve their dignity preserved. None of needs this voted on in a election we a human and the specifics of our lives is between us and the Sacred not the voting booth.
Thank you for your very insightful posting. I believe that issues such as gay marriage should be addressed, if for nothing else but for the reason of ethics and human rights. I feel that the issue falls on the ethics of both sides of the argument by nature of its self. You have one side, that should not be denied a right to openly share in the benefits of loving another person; even of the same sex, and you have another side that simply doesn’t want to redefine marriage by law. This presents a dilemma for me because I strongly believe in both the rights of human beings, and the traditional standards of marriage. You touched on something critical earlier, which is why I stand on keeping marriage as it is and has been defined. For example you stated that a father cant marry a daughter. My question would be; why not? I know that I would be looked at funny for even asking such a question. A fifty year old man cant marry a 13 year old girl; in fact that man would be seen as low scum for even thinking of such a thing. I guess my main question is, what is the basis of that law, and what would promote our societal hatred for those types of unions; if they are between two human beings. If the father and daughter love each other in a romantic way, should they be denied their right to marry? If so, why? Questions like these draw me to ask, “when do we draw a line on this marriage thing if we should be as open and liberal as we can be?”
ReplyDeleteWith all of these questions floating around in my head, I still feel that any person should be able to be treated fairly, as long as the law is an ethical one that promotes them being treated fairly and our society still having something to stand on generations to come.
Thanks
J
I have never been a fan of pageants that still judge women in how they look in swimsuits or evening gowns. So, I was actually glad that Ms. California was asked this very controversial question. While I completely disagree with what she said, I'm glad that for once we were talking about an issue instead of how she looked in her bathing suit or who had the best hairstyle.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that to support gays and lesbians fully, you need to support their right to marriage. I know that people have used scripture to speak against homosexuality, however, a large part of my denomination (UMC) includes looking at tradition, reason and experience. The UMC tradition has been to welcome people regardless of race, gender or sexual identity. And there are many of us (clergy and lay) working on extending this into the ministry and marriage. Reason has taught me that same sex couples can be just as caring and loving as heterosexual couples and can raise healthy and cared for children as well. Finally, my own personal experience includes knowing gay and lesbian persons who I call dear friends. These friends are just as moral and deserving of rights as I and my boyfriend.
I hope my comment is on topic enough to contribute something of value to this conversation. I don't know if I am liberal, conservative or just confused anymore. I have participated in fundamentalist, moderate and liberal faith groups. I have come to believe that the terms "liberal" or "conservative" carry almost no meaning except to reveal how other people look at you. For example, if someone calls you a conservative, the only thing that tells me is that you are more liberal then they are. If someone calls you liberal, the only thing I really know is that they are more conservative than you are.
ReplyDeleteI bring this up because I always hate to see labels and stereotypes thrown around, especially when I catch myself doing it. But I just have to say that I have met so many "conservatives/fundamentalists" that diligently support traditional marriage that genuinely love and care for GLBT individuals. They are good people trying to make the best choices they can. Of course their are also people who use faith as an excuse to hide homophobia and prejudice. But the same things can be said about the GLBT community.
What bothers me is that I see very little work being done to reach these middle groups. You can absolutely love gay people and not support gay marriage. In the same way you can absolutely love God and follow Christ and be "gay." Ironically, I often find myself thinking that if both sides could recognize this fact, we might be able to make much more headway in the area of Gay rights. I just hate to see any situation where so many good people end up at odds with one another.
Goodness! Such a hot topic today!
ReplyDeleteI just want to pose this question:
Why did Perez Hilton ask a question that he knew he would be biased for, and reply that he didn't like her because she was a dumb b*****? Does he not discredit himself as a person who judges based on stereotypes? By him saying that, is he allowing her to say, "That's so g**!"? Great job to him.
To me, the argument seems like it is unending. Whether marriage is a privilege or a right, whether homosexuality or non-heterosexuality is nature or nurture or both, whether or not someone can support equal rights and not approve something... Each person will have his or her own opinion based on whatever matters to them most. Yet, how are we all to react to it? Do we let these things continue on to affect us in ways that we become blinded to our own discrimination?
By Sangjae Lee
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posting Tony. It is really interesting subject. I’m still confusing how I should think about samesex marriage, gays, or lesbians. When I was in Korea, there were not that many gays and lesbians, and samesex marriage is not only illegal but also coming out that she or he is engaged in homosexual is means digging one’s own grave. Because Korean society is so conservative one, the samesex marriage is kinds of taboo and the marriage is only for man and woman. Even in the church, gays or lesbians were regarded as sinner, or one who plots treason against God. One day, one of my young adult group members asked me that “what do you think about gays and lesbians?” and “Don’t you think that they suffer mental derangement?” and in the last question, I was dumbfounded. It was that “Don’t you think that gays and lesbians are the mistake of God?” At that time, I could not answer to him, because I did not stand on the firm ground about homosexuality. Still, I do not have certain definition on them, but I am thinking whoever they are they have to be treated as a human being.
I am seeking for your insightful answers.
Sangjae, thank you for telling us about Korea and thank you for your frankness about your seeking answers for yourself.
ReplyDeleteI would venture to say, however, the reason you think that there were not that many gays and lesbians is that they were in closets, afraid to admit their sexuality for fear of social censure. I would guess that there are as many GLBT people in the US or in Korea, percentage wise, as anywhere else in the world. Just because we don't see them, doesn't mean they don't exist. (The same is true in many cultures where there is a stigma about being disabled or where access to public places is so difficult that disabled people must stay hidden in their homes.)
On the question you were asked about God making a mistake by creating gays or lesbians--perhaps the question isn't about homosexuality at all but about the nature of God. I prefer to believe in a loving and compassionate God who doesn't make mistakes and who loves us all despite what others regard as our infirmities or "mental derangements." One day, perhaps, we will be able to truly accept "the other" as Jesus has asked us to do--as children of God made in the image of God with love.
This truly is a "hot topic," and one which I have little to add to. I only want to comment that, as I listened to the young lady in question on the Today show a few mornings ago, she repeatedly responded to all questions with "I am committed to protecting marriage," or "I just want to protect marriage."
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered - what, pray tell, are they protecting marriage from? What is the threat? If I am a straight woman married to a straight man, and my sister is a gay woman married to a gay woman, how is my marriage threatened? Isn't marriage more threatened by things like infidelity, jealousy, abuse, addiction and financial problems?
I contend that the main reason institutions have refused to recognize same-sex couples is related to finances. If a company must extend family insurance coverage to a same-sex couple, costs go up, right?