A note a wrote in response to my friend's blurb about not legalizing gay marriage that hurt me. This was my response to him:
My Thoughts on Gay Marriage
By Casey Wooley
My friend had filled out a survey yesterday regarding his thoughts on gay marriage. He posted it to a bulletin, and his opinion really surprised me. So as such, he and I had a very long discussion tonight, which resulted basically in this pseudo-blog.
Let's first start with his arguments, so you'll understand how my responses tie into it.
When asked "do you think gay marriage should be legalized?" His response was:
This may hurt one individual I hold true to my heart but I have to say no. It states in the bible God created Woman for Men and this is what I believe. Above and beyond that he had destroyed 2 cities that were of homosexuals; Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now I sent him a response saying I'd like to discuss his beliefs further, without using the "Biblical" references. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I don't believe it's fair to use Biblical arguments to justify a secular status quo change. Anyway, this was the response I got, and what sparked me into the blog below:
I just wanted to clarify what was said in thats survey. I got love for ya, we've been friends all of our lives and I accept whatever decisions you make in your life. I said it before I am proud of you for being proud to be who you are and not have to hide from the world. But accept is the keyword, I dont have to like them or even agree with things you do as long as I accept you and don't treat you differently it shouldn't matter my opinion on such a contraversial topic.
I then asked him if he felt whether I deserved to have the same rights as him, and whether or not he believed I was born gay or whether or not I chose it. He said:
Their is two sides to that though honostly. Everyone deserves to be happy, you deserve to be happy and if marrying another man is going to make you happy then I accept it, but I do not feel that going against Gods will for two people of the same sex male or female is the right. You say you can't help liking men, just as majority of the rest of men can't help liking women okay. Essentially w/every controversial subject their is no right or wrong person. It all comes down to acceptance of each others opinions because their really is no happy medium other than that.
These were his arguments. I then wrote the following to him to I could precisely record my thoughts:
My thoughts on gay marriage, controvesial subjects, and the like:
Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, and I would be doing you a dis-service if I didn't let you have an opinion and just shut my mind to it. But, until you're successfully able to tell me your logic, I won't understand your opinion, and as such, will not believe you've accepted me for me despite what you say. There are many things at play here. Let's start with them and my feelings:
It offends me to no end that you don't feel that me, as you "brother from another mother" as you once put it, would like to see me have the same rights afforded to me by the laws regulating this land as you and your fiance. It doesn't make any sense.The argument you've laid out is flawed. Just as you are Christian and believe the same things in the Bible as I do, it's not fair to use some parts of the Bible to justify arguments in your favor and other parts not to (ie premarital sex). It has taken me a very long time to truly come to grips with my Christianity and homosexuality and to reconcile the two together. It is possible to be a gay Christian, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I were to die tomorrow I'd be going to Heaven to see my God, my Lord Jesus, and all those who went before me. And the way I've reconciled the two is that I believe, and as my pastor has even admitted, that the Bible is not infallable. There are contradictions,
and in fact, the Bible was put together by a council of religious men who went by the rule of "if it contradicts a previous statement, throw it out." So with this thought process, societal rules and mindsets have had to influence it throughout the ages. Even so, let's say it was placed their by God, and homosexuality somehow IS A SIN. Then, like all my other sins, which according to the Bible are equal in God's eyes, I am prepared to answer for it when I get to Heaven. Regardless, I know that no matter what I've done on this earth, nothing can rip me from the love of God.
Okay, all that being said, let me take a breather. Truthfully I wouldn't be so upset if gay marriage wasn't allowed, because afterall marriage is technically a religous institution. The government shouldnt be allowed to tell a relgion how to govern its body of believers. However, the government has no right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they can have the same tax rights, death rights, and all the individual priveleges that come with being married. So call it a civil union that men and women, or two men, or two women can enter into and let me be the one who can sit by my partner's side in fifty years if he is dying and I can make the decisions for him, and be there to hold his hand. Don't tell me that those bonds, those relationships are not worth the same as a heterosexual relationship between a man and a wife.
Now onto your argument on that there is never a right or a wrong with any controversial subject. That's bullshit. If we followed that logic then mankind wouldn't be sitting here. Take such controversial subjects as slavery. Sure was a hot-button issue in the mid 1800's now wasn't it? I mean, some people said they agreed with it, others said they didn't. But we all know that enslaving any man or woman, or child is wrong. You can't take away a person's freedom for no reason, it's inhumane. With your argument, you'd be saying that the people who support slavery have their opinion, and the people who don't have theirs, so let's just go with the status quo. Well, technically, the status quo at the time was to keep slaves if you could afford them. Doesn't seem like we'd be in a very good predicament now if we still had slaves around, now does it?
Let's look at another in history shall we? How about giving WOMEN the right to vote. I mean, after all, they're women--they're second class citizens right? They shouldn't be able to vote. I mean, that was the argument in the 1920's. Some people felt they deserved the right, others did not. So by your logic, neither is right, neither is wrong--there is only opinion. So by your logic again, we'd be stuck with the status quo, leaving things alone, and therefore women wouldn't be voting.
Throughout history mankind has battled subjects like these because enlightened people have realized that the status quo isn't working. I mean, technically we as Americans shouldn't be here by your logic. Those englightened fore-fathers sure as heck had a different idea for the Americas when compared to those in England. Had we followed your logic, neither America or England would be right, and the status quo would remain the same and we'd be drinking tea at high noon and eating biscuits for brunch. America wouldn't exist and we'd be bowing to Queen Elizabeth. Again, doesn't seem like it would make much sense.
The point of the matter is simply the status quo is an ever-changing melting pot of ideas of humans throughout history who have dared to challenge it. Whenever there is an injustice, those who dare to say something usually do so in the face of those afraid to change it, as though it is some great sacrifice to be had. Slavery was a Biblically-supported activity, and people who argued for it argued that the Bible said it was okay. Yet, we know today that it's not okay. The Bible says women should take a secondary position in their homes and in the lives of the church, yet today we have women pastors and women who are the bread-winners of their homes. Religion has always been a crutch of individuals throughout history because they're afraid that somehow mixing up the status quo, suddenly will throw the world into chaos. But it never has. It has advanced us as a civilization. It has made us better thinkers, it has made us a better people.
So applying your logic to gay marriage, once again, doesn't make much sense. You say you've accepted me, yet you don't want to see me have the same rights as you. Suddenly, whether you directly or indirectly meant to do it, have suddenly told me that you are better than me. That somehow I'm a second-class citizen. You say you've accepted me, yet you'll be the first in the voting booth to tell the government "no, don't give him the right to marry, he doesn't deserve it because MY RELIGION tells me that he doesn't deserve it." How does that speak acceptance? How does that tell me that you are okay with the life I was born with? No, it tells me that you are judging me based upon a trait that should not be judged. If you are going to judge somebody, judge them by the internal qualities they exhibit. Judge them by their character, their integrity, how hard they work, what they do to support themselves, their family and their friends, judge them by their honest or lack thereof, judge them because of the type of person they are, not the color person they are or the type of person they like. Use the measurable traits as determining factors on how a person should be looked at. Not their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, their creed, their culture, their abilities, their age, or any other difference not chosen by them.
There is a grave difference between acceptance and tolerance. Tolerance means you'll deal with it because it's not affecting you. Acceptance means that despite our differences, we're on an equal level with each other--and at this moment in time, we're not.
No comments:
Post a Comment